MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124539553 · doi:10.1139/g11-009

Genetic map of triticale compiling DArT, SSR, and AFLP markers

2011· article· en· W2124539553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mirosław Tyrka, Piotr Tomasz Bednarek, Andrzej Kilian, Maria Wędzony, Tomasz Hura, Eva Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDartAmplified fragment length polymorphismTriticaleGenetic markerMicrosatelliteGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGenetic diversityAlleleGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A set of 90 doubled haploid (DH) lines derived from F(1) plants that originated from a cross between × Triticosecale Wittm. 'Saka3006' and ×Triticosecale Wittm. 'Modus', via wide crossing with maize, were used to create a genetic linkage map of triticale. The map has 21 linkage groups assigned to the A, B, and R genomes including 155 simple sequence repeat (SSR), 1385 diversity array technology (DArT), and 28 amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers covering 2397 cM with a mean distance between two markers of 4.1 cM. Comparative analysis with wheat consensus maps revealed that triticale chromosomes of the A and B genomes were represented by 15 chromosomes, including combinations of 2AS.2AL#, 2AL#2BL, 6AS.6AL#, and 2BS.6AL# instead of 2A, 2B, and 6A. In respect to published maps of rye, substantial rearrangements were found also for chromosomes 1R, 2R, and 3R of the rye genome. Chromosomes 1R and 2R were truncated and the latter was linked with 3R. A nonhomogeneous distribution of markers across the triticale genome was observed with evident bias (48%) towards the rye genome. This genetic map may serve as a reference linkage map of triticale for efficient studies of structural rearrangements, gene mapping, and marker-assisted selection.

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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207