A restriction fragment length polymorphism based linkage map of a diploid<i>Avena</i>recombinant inbred line population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A population of 100 F6-derived recombinant inbred lines was developed from the cross of two diploid (2n = 14) Avena accessions, CI3815 (A. strigosa) and C11994 (A. wiestii). Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) probes previously mapped in other grass species were used to develop a framework linkage map suitable for comparative genetics. Nine linkage groups were identified among the 181 loci mapped, with an average interlocus distance of 5 cM, and a total genetic map length of 880 cM. A cluster of five tightly linked crown rust resistance genes (Pca) was localized on the map, as were five loci identified by disease resistance gene analogs from maize, sorghum, and wheat. None of the five loci identified by the gene analogs were linked to the Pca locus. The linkage map was compared with previously published diploid and hexaploid linkage maps in an attempt to identify homologous or homoeologous chromosomes between populations. Locus orders and linkage relationships were poorly conserved between the A. strigosa x A. wiestii map and other Avena maps. In spite of mapping complications due to duplications within a basic genome a well as the allopolyploid constitution of many Avena species, such map comparisons within Avena provide further evi dence of substantial chromosomal rearrangement between species within Avena.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".