MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107681119 · doi:10.1139/g06-034

Somatic chimerism, genetic inheritance, and mapping of the<i>fleshless berry</i>(<i>flb</i>) mutation in grapevine (<i>Vitis vinifera</i>L.)

2006· article· en· W2107681119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucie Fernandez, Agnès Doligez, Gilbert Lopez, Mark R. Thomas, A. Bouquet, Laurent Torregrosa

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLocus (genetics)GeneticsBerryMutantAllelePhenotypeGenetic analysisBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fleshless berry (flb) mutation of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. 'Ugni Blanc') impairs the differentiation and division of inner mesocarp cells responsible for flesh in grapevine berries. In order to study the inheritance of the mutation and to map the flb locus, 5 segregating populations were created. Progeny plants were classified as mutant or wild type by scoring for the presence of an ovary phenotype associated with the Flb- phenotype at anthesis. Phenotypic segregation revealed the involvement of a single dominant allele that was heterozygous in the original mutant. Through bulk segregant analysis, microsatellite (simple sequence repeat (SSR)) markers linked to the mutation were identified, and the flb locus was assigned to linkage group 18. The locus position was then refined by analyzing individual progeny and the segregation of SSR markers in the target region with the closest marker 5.6 cM distant from the flb locus. All progeny with the Flb- ovary phenotype differed from the original fleshless berry mutant in that no berries formed after anthesis. Our data suggest that the original mutant plant was a chimera with the mutated allele present in only 1 cell layer (L2 layer) of the ovary and berry.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207