Genotype and Growing Environment Interaction Shows a Positive Correlation between Substrates of Raffinose Family Oligosaccharides (RFO) Biosynthesis and Their Accumulation in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop genetic improvement strategies to modulate raffinose family oligosaccharides (RFO) concentration in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) seeds, RFO and their precursor concentrations were analyzed in 171 chickpea genotypes from diverse geographical origins. The genotypes were grown in replicated trials over two years in the field (Patancheru, India) and in the greenhouse (Saskatoon, Canada). Analysis of variance revealed a significant impact of genotype, environment, and their interaction on RFO concentration in chickpea seeds. Total RFO concentration ranged from 1.58 to 5.31 mmol/100 g and from 2.11 to 5.83 mmol/100 g in desi and kabuli genotypes, respectively. Sucrose (0.60-3.59 g/100 g) and stachyose (0.18-2.38 g/100 g) were distinguished as the major soluble sugar and RFO, respectively. Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between substrate and product concentration in RFO biosynthesis. In chickpea seeds, raffinose, stachyose, and verbascose showed a moderate broad sense heritability (0.25-0.56), suggesting the use of a multilocation trials based approach in chickpea seed quality improvement programs.
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) | 0.000 | 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".