MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112579654 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p16

Quantitative Trait Loci Associated with Moisture, Protein, and Oil Content in Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]

2012· article· en· W2112579654 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
ASM G. Masum Akond, Bobby Ragin, Richard Bazzelle, Stella K. Kantartzi, Khalid Meksem, My Abdelmajid Kassem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research LaboratoryArmy Research Office
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusWater contentInbred strainGenetic linkageMoistureBiologySoybean oilCultivarLinkage (software)AgronomyGeneticsHorticultureFood scienceGeneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to detect quantitative trait loci (QTL) for moisture, protein, and oil content in soybean grown in two plant density environments. Soybean recombinant inbred lines (RIL), obtained from a cross between cultivars PI 438489B and Hamilton, were used. Thirty one linkage groups were obtained from high density genetic linkage maps constructed by 1,536 Universal Soy Linkage Panel 1.0 of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers. For the lines cultivated in higher plant density (25 cm row space), ten QTLs were mapped in A2, B2, C2, D1a, M and O linkage groups for moisture, protein, and oil. Two QTLs for moisture, two QTLs for protein and six QTLs for oil explained 0.09, 15.36 and 3.54% of the phenotypic variation of moisture, protein, and oil respectively. For the lines cultivated in lower density (50 cm row space), three QTLs for each of moisture and protein were mapped in linkage groups A2, C1, D1b, L and O; QTLs for moisture and protein explained 0.96 and 10.63% of the phenotypic variation respectively. These QTL will facilitate the implementation of MAS for moisture, protein and oil content in soybean-breeding 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 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)0.001
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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207