MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093439187 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.0543

Construction and Characterization of a BAC Library of a Cold‐Tolerant Hexaploid Wheat Cultivar

2005· article· en· W2093439187 on OpenAlexaff
Indira Ratnayaka, Monica Båga, Brian Fowler, Ravindra N. Chibbar

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInsert (composites)GenomeLocus (genetics)PlasmidGenomic libraryBacterial artificial chromosomePloidyGeneticsDNACultivarGenome sizeBotanyGeneBase sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) library was constructed from DNA of a commercially grown winter wheat cultivar ( Triticum aestivum L. cv. Norstar) that is highly tolerant to low temperatures (LT 50 = −24°C). The library was produced from nuclear leaf DNA that was partially digested with Hin dIII and inserted into pCC1BAC vector. In excess of 1.2 × 10 6 clones propagated in E. coli were obtained, archived in 384‐well microtitre plates and stored at −80°C. More than 97.1% of the recombinant plasmids contained inserts and were free from organelle DNA contamination. Analysis of 119 randomly isolated clones revealed insert sizes ranging from 17 to 262 kb with 26% of the inserts exceeding 100 kb. The average insert size was 75 kb and the genome coverage of the library was theoretically 5.5 times the haploid genome equivalent. This corresponds to a 99.6% probability of recovering any specific Norstar DNA sequence from the library. Screening of the library with nine simple sequence repeat (SSR) locus‐specific markers supported a >4.4‐fold genome coverage. The BAC library was gridded onto high‐density filters and will be used for isolation of genetic loci associated with cold‐tolerance and grain quality traits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207