MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110596426 · doi:10.3906/tar-1207-75

Marker-assisted breeding of a durum wheat cultivar for γ-gliadin and LMW-glutenin proteins affecting pasta quality

2013· article· en· W2110596426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmet Yıldırım, Özlem Ateş Sönmezoğlu, Abdülvahit Sayaslan, Mehmet Koyuncu, Tuğba Güleç, N. Kandemi̇r

Bibliographic record

VenueTURKISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsGluteninBackcrossingIntrogressionGliadinBiologyMarker-assisted selectionCultivarLocus (genetics)GlutenProlaminGrain qualityGeneGenetic markerAgronomyBiotechnologyStorage proteinGeneticsFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pasta quality of durum wheat is one of the most important properties for the industry and consumers. Therefore, breeding for improved grain quality without yield penalties, using modern breeding methods, has been a primary objective in durum wheat breeding programs in recent years. In this study, 2 important gene regions that encode pasta-quality associated proteins (/gamma-gliadin 45 and LMW-2 glutenin) were transferred to a registered Turkish durum wheat variety, Sarıçanak-98, from a high-quality Canadian durum wheat cultivar, Kyle, through a marker-assisted backcross breeding method. Each of the F1 and backcross (BC) plants were backcrossed 4 times to the recurrent parent, and the backcrossed plants carrying the targeted gene regions in all generations were selected by marker-assisted selection (MAS). DNA markers in combination with A-PAGE were used for tracking the introgression of the targeted gene regions. Transfer of Gli-B1 locus encoding /gamma-gliadin 45 and Glu-B3 locus encoding LMW-2 glutenin to the wheat variety Sarıçanak-98 led to a considerable increase in protein content and gluten quality.

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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTURKISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRYSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207