MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146444382 · doi:10.1139/g02-118

Mapping quantitative trait loci for bean traits and ovule number in<i>Theobroma cacao</i>L.

2003· article· en· W2146444382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Didier Clément, A. M. Risterucci, Juan Carlos Motamayor, Jeanne A.K. N’Goran, Claire Lanaud

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCocoa and Sweet Potato Agronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyQuantitative trait locusTheobromaRestriction fragment length polymorphismAmplified fragment length polymorphismGeneticsMicrosatelliteGenotypeAlleleBotanyGenetic diversityPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping for bean traits and the number of ovules per ovary was carried out in cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) using three test-cross progenies derived from crosses between a lower Amazon Forastero male parent (Catongo) and three female parents: one upper Amazon Forastero (IMC78) and two Trinitario (DR1 and S52). RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism), microsatellite, and AFLP (amplified fragment lengthpolymorphism) markers were used for mapping. Between one and six QTL for bean traits (length, weight, and shape index) and one and four QTL for the number of ovules per ovary were detected using composite interval mapping (CIM). Individual QTL explained between 5 and 24% of the phenotypic variation. QTL clusters were identified on several chromosomes, but particularly on chromosome 4. QTL related to bean traits were detected in the same region in both Trinitario parents and in a close region in the upper Amazon Forastero parent. In reference to a previous diversity study where alleles specific to Criollo and Forastero genotypes were identified, it was possible to speculate on the putative origin (Criollo or Forastero) of favorable QTL alleles segregating in both Trinitario studied.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations45
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicCocoa and Sweet Potato AgronomyFrench-language works237,207