MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breeding system variation, genetics and evolution in the Turneraceae

2006· review· en· W2125354170 on OpenAlexaff
Joel S. Shore, María Mercedes Arbo, Aveliano Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLocus (genetics)PolyploidAllelePloidyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the genetics and evolution of breeding systems in the Turneraceae. Distyly occurs in seven of 10 genera and 81% of species. The remaining species are homostylous. Polyploid evolution has been significant in Turnera. Approximately 60% of species are polyploid ranging from diploid through decaploid. No relationship between breeding system and polyploidy is evident. The genetics of distyly involves a one-locus two-allele system (S and s). Evidence from crosses with homostylous species and mutants is consistent with the possibility that a "Primula-type" supergene underlies distyly but does not prove this to be the case. A polygalacturonase, and an alpha-dioxygenase specific to the transmitting tissue of short-styled plants both exhibit morph-limited expression in concert with predictions from an evolutionary model. The function of the proteins in distyly, if any, is unknown. We have begun constructing a fine-scale genetic map of Turnera. Two genetic markers lie within 0.2 cm of the distyly locus. This should provide a starting point for positional cloning of the distyly locus and reveal the genetic architecture and molecular basis of distyly.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207