Relationships among durum wheat accessions. II. A comparison of molecular and pedigree information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of direct ancestry relationships provides information with which to determine essential derivation. SSR profiles were used to determine the pattern of relatedness among 134 durum wheat accessions, representing the most important modern durum wheat gene pools. Simple sequence repeat (SSR)- and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP)-based genetic similarities among cultivars with accurate pedigrees were compared with pedigree-based coefficients of parentage. Sizeable departures of molecular similarities from the expected ones were observed, indicating the unreliability of inferring the pattern of genetic relatedness from the coefficient of parentage. Case studies consisting of parent-progeny cultivar trios and pairs, identified on the basis of their registered pedigree, were studied to evaluate the probability of ancestry of each progeny cultivar, compared with all the remaining accessions. Rare alleles and haplotype sharing were also explored. When the results did not agree with the registered parentages, SSR markers provided information with which to identify the most probable parents (or the corresponding "breeding lineages") in the collection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".