MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantitative trait loci for soil‐penetrating ability of roots in durum wheat

2007· article· en· W2120887652 on OpenAlexaff
Katashi Kubo, Ismahane Elouafi, N. Watanabe, M. M. Nachit, M. Inagaki, Kazuto Iwama, Yutaka Jitsuyama

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHokkaido University
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusBiologyPopulationInbred strainHorticultureAgronomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasing root penetration (RP) ability into hard soil is important to improve drought resistance in durum wheat. Traits related to RP ability were evaluated in 110 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from a cross between ‘Jennah Khetifa’ and ‘Cham1’ using paraffin‐Vaseline (PV) discs. QTL analyses were made for the number of roots penetrating the PV disc (PVRN), total number of seminal and crown roots (TRN), RP index (PVRN/TRN) and root dry weight (DW). ‘Jennah Khetifa’ had higher PVRN, RP index and root DW values than ‘Cham1’, and the RILs showed significant differences for these traits. Two closely‐linked markers, Xgwm617a and Xgwm427b , on the long arm of chromosome 6A were associated with PVRN and RP index. For root DW, a QTL was linked to marker Xgwm11 on chromosome 1B. Alleles of ‘Jennah Khetifa’ were associated with increased PVRN, RP index and root DW. No QTL was detected for TRN in this mapping population. The absence of co‐located QTLs suggested that RP ability was controlled separately from TRN and root DW. Although the population size and number of replications were small, this study helps in understanding the complexity of root growth and the potential of marker‐assisted selection for selecting genotypes with high RP ability in durum wheat populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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