MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Production and characterization of an amphiploid between common wheat and <i>Psathyrostachys huashanica</i> Keng ex Kuo

2008· article· en· W2151160714 on OpenAlexaff
Houyang Kang, Yushi Wang, Guohuan Sun, H. Q. Zhang, Xing Fan, Yonghong Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersProgram for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyPowdery mildewPollenHybridBotanyMeiosisChromosomeChromosome pairingAgronomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wide crosses and synthetic amphiploids have played an important role in introgressing desirable traits from related species into cultivated wheat. Hybrids between Triticum aestivum cv. ‘J‐11’ and Psathyrostachys huashanica were treated with colchicine, to produce a new intergeneric amphiploid (PHW‐SA). The morphological characteristics of PHW‐SA resembled the parent ‘J‐11’. PHW‐SA plants have purple internodes and pubescence in the basal spikelet, inherited from the P. huashanica parent. Somatic chromosome numbers varied from 2n = 51 to 2n = 56, with 70.59% of plants having 56 chromosomes. At metaphase I, PHW‐SA (2n = 56) plants showed an average of 1.15 univalents, 27.34 bivalents, 0.03 trivalents and 0.02 tetravalents per cell; complete chromosome pairing occurred in 50% of the pollen mother cells. A survey of disease resistances revealed that the stripe rust resistance from P. huashanica was expressed, but powdery mildew resistance was suppressed. The fertility of PHW‐SA was 60%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207