MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147281359 · doi:10.1139/g10-001

Mapping of quantitative trait loci for high level of self-incompatibility in<i>Brassica rapa</i>L.

2010· article· en· W2147281359 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Katsunori Hatakeyama, Atsushi Horisaki, Satoshi Niikura, Yoshihiro Narusaka, Hiroshi Abe, Hitoshi Yoshiaki, Masahiko Ishida, Hiroyuki Fukuoka, Satoru Matsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusBiologyBrassica rapaBrassicaIndelGeneticsInbred strainPopulationGenetic linkageGeneBotanySingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The level of self-incompatibility (SI) is important to the purity of F1 seeds produced using the SI system of Brassica vegetables. To analyze the genetic basis of the level of SI, we generated an F2 population derived from a cross between a turnip inbred line showing a high level of SI and a Chinese cabbage inbred line showing a low level, and evaluated the level of SI under insect pollination in two years. We constructed a detailed linkage map of Brassica rapa from the F2 progeny, consisting of SSR, SNP, indel, and CAPS loci segregating into 10 linkage groups covering approximately 700 cM. Five quantitative trait loci (QTL) for high-level SI were identified. The phenotypic variation explained by the QTL ranged between 7.2% and 23.8%. Two QTL were detected in both years. Mapping of SI-related genes revealed that these QTL were co-localized with SLG on R07 and MLPK on R03. This is the first report of QTL for high-level SI evaluated under insect pollination in a Brassica vegetable. Our results could be useful for the marker-assisted selection of parental lines with a stable SI.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207