Resistance to quinclorac and ALS‐inhibitor herbicides in <i>Galium spurium</i> is conferred by two distinct genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Classical Mendelian experiments were conducted to determine the genetics and inheritance of quinclorac and acetolactate synthase (ALS)‐inhibitor resistance in a biotype of Galium spurium. Plants were screened with the formulated product of either quinclorac or the ALS‐inhibitor, thifensulfuron, at the field dose of 125 or 6 g active ingredient (a.i.) ha−1 respectively. Segregation in the F2 generation indicated that quinclorac resistance was a single, recessive nuclear trait, based on a 1 : 3 segregation ratio [resistant : susceptible (R : S)]. Resistance to ALS inhibitors was due to a single, dominant nuclear trait, segregating in the F2 generation in a 3 : 1 ratio (R : S). The genetic models were confirmed by herbicide screens of F1 and backcrosses between the F1 and the S parent. F2 plants that survived quinclorac treatment set seed and the resulting F3 progeny were screened with either herbicide. Quinclorac‐treated F3 plants segregated in a 1 : 0 ratio (R : S), hence F2 progenitors were homozygous for quinclorac resistance. In contrast, F3 progeny segregated into three ratios: 1 : 0, 3 : 1 and 0 : 1 (R : S) in response to ALS‐inhibitor treatment. This segregation pattern indicates that their F2 parents were either homozygous or heterozygous for ALS‐inhibitor resistance. Therefore, there were clearly two distinct resistance mechanisms encoded by two genes that were not tightly linked as demonstrated by segregation patterns of the F3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".