MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inheritance of insensitivity to culture filtrate of <i>Pyrenophora tritici‐repentis</i>, race 2, in wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.)

2006· article· en· W2111992436 on OpenAlexaff
P. K. Singh, G. R. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorosisPyrenophoraBiologyInoculationSporeFungusNecrosisCultivarBotanyHorticultureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tan spot of wheat is caused by the fungus Pyrenophora tritici‐repentis . On susceptible hosts, P. tritici‐repentis induces two phenotypically distinct symptoms, tan necrosis and chlorosis. This fungus produces several toxins that induce tan necrosis and chlorosis symptoms in susceptible cultivars. The objectives of this study were to determine the inheritance of insensitivity to necrosis‐inducing culture filtrate of P. tritici‐repentis , race 2, and to establish the relationship between the host reaction to culture filtrate and spore inoculation with respect to the necrosis component. The F 1 , F 2 , and BC 1 F 1 plants and F 2:8 lines of five crosses involving resistant wheat genotypes ‘Erik’, ‘Red Chief’, and line 86ISMN 2137 with susceptible cultivars ‘Glenlea’ and ‘Kenyon’ were studied. Plants were spore‐inoculated at the two‐leaf stage. Four days later, the newly emerged uninoculated third leaf was infiltrated with a culture filtrate of isolate Ptr 92–164 (race 2). Reactions to the spore inoculation and the culture filtrate were recorded 8 days after spore inoculation. The segregation observed in the F 2 and BC 1 F 1 generations and the F 2:8 lines of all crosses indicated that a single recessive gene controlled insensitivity to necrosis caused by culture filtrate. This gene also controlled resistance to necrosis induced by spore inoculation.

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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207