A new intervarietal linkage map and its application for quantitative trait locus analysis of "gigas" features in bread wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A doubled-haploid (DH) population from an intervarietal cross between the Japanese cultivar 'Fukuho-komugi' and the Israeli wheat line 'Oligoculm' was produced by means of wheat x maize crosses. One hundred seven DH lines were genotyped to construct a simple sequence repeat (SSR) based linkage map with RFLP, RAPD, and inter-simple sequence repeat markers. Out of 570 loci genotyped, 330 were chosen based on their positions on the linkage map to create a "framework" map for quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis. Among the 28 linkage groups identified, 25 were assigned to the 21 chromosomes of wheat. The total map length was 3948 cM, including the three unassigned linkage groups (88 cM), and the mean interval between loci was 12.0 cM. Loci with segregation distortion were clustered on chromosomes 1A, 4B, 4D, 5A, 6A, 6B, and 6D. After vernalization, the DH lines were evaluated for spike number per plant (SN) and spike length (SL) in a greenhouse under 24-h daylength to assess the "gigas" features (extremely large spikes and leaves) of 'Oligoculm'. The DH lines were also autumn-sown in the field in two seasons (1990-1991 and 1997-1998) for SN and SL evaluation. QTL analysis was performed by composite interval mapping (CIM) with the framework map to detect QTLs for SN and SL. A major QTL on 1AS, which was stable in both greenhouse and field conditions, was found to control SN. This QTL was close to the glume pubescence locus (Hg) and explained up to 62.9% of the total phenotypic variation. The 'Oligoculm' allele restricted spike number. The SSR locus Xpsp2999 was the closest locus to this QTL and is considered to be a possible marker for restricted tillering derived from 'Oligoculm'. Eight QTLs were detected for SL. The largest QTL detected on 2DS was common to the greenhouse and field environments. It explained up to 33.3% of the total phenotypic variation. The second largest QTL on 1AS was common to the greenhouse and the 1997-1998 season. The position of this QTL was close to that for the SN detected on 1AS. The association between SN and SL is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".