MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112407205 · doi:10.1093/genetics/160.3.949

Genetic and Physical Mapping of <i>Avr1a</i> in <i>Phytophthora sojae</i>

2002· article· en· W2112407205 on OpenAlexaff
Terry MacGregor, Madan K. Bhattacharyya, Brett M. Tyler, Ravindra G. Bhat, A. F. Schmitthenner, Mark Gijzen

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhytophthora sojaeBiologyContigGeneticsGenetic markerLocus (genetics)RAPDPopulationGene mappingGenetic linkageAmplified fragment length polymorphismGeneOomycetePhytophthoraQuantitative trait locusGenotypeGenomeBotanyGenetic diversityChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interaction between soybean and the phytopathogenic oomycete Phytophthora sojae is controlled by host resistance (Rps) genes and pathogen avirulence (Avr) genes. We have mapped the Avr1a locus in F(2) populations derived from four different P. sojae races. Four RAPD and nine AFLP markers linked to Avr1a were initially identified. Nine markers were used to compare genetic linkage maps of the Avr1a locus in two distinct F(2) populations. Distorted segregation ratios favoring homozygous genotypes were noted in both crosses. Segregation analysis of all the markers in one F(2) population of 90 progeny generated a map of 113.2 cM encompassing Avr1a, with one marker cosegregating with the gene. The cosegregating DNA marker was used to isolate P. sojae BAC clones and construct a physical map covering 170 kb, from which additional DNA markers were developed. Three markers occurring within the BAC contig were mapped in an enlarged population of 486 F(2) progeny. Avr1a was localized to a 114-kb interval, and an average physical to genetic distance ratio of 391 kb/cM was calculated for this region. This work provides a basis for the positional cloning of Avr1a.

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 score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207