Development of self‐incompatible <i>Brassica napus:</i> (II) <i>Brassica oleracea</i> S‐allele expression in <i>B. napus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brassica napus var. oleifera varieties have traditionally been developed as open‐pollinated varieties. The successful introduction of several high‐yielding hybrids based on cytoplasmic male sterility or transgenic pollination control systems has generated interest in the development of new hybrid systems. Self‐incompatibility could be an additional useful pollination control system for B. napus if a sufficient number of S‐alleles could be developed in this species. The S‐alleles, S2, S5, S13, S24 and S39, were identified in five hybrids of B. oleracea var. italica and subsequently transferred to B. napus. Doubled haploid lines were produced for the self‐incompatible (SI) lines in B. napus and intercrossed to produce SI heterozygotes in order to study allele interaction. There was a greater incidence of interallelic dominance in the stigmas and pollen of B. napus than was reported for the S‐alleles in B. oleracea. Allele S24 exhibited the greatest degree of dominance over the other alleles tested, while allele S2 was generally recessive or codominant with other alleles. Self‐incompatible expression was very similar in the SI homozygotes and heterozygotes, thus no weakening of the SI trait in the heterozygote was observed. The implications of S‐allele interaction for the use of SI in B. napus are 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".