MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165570331 · doi:10.1139/g07-004

STS markers for the wheat yellow rust resistance gene<i>Yr5</i>suggest a NBS–LRR-type resistance gene cluster

2007· article· en· W2165570331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philip H. Smith, James Hadfield, N. Hart, R. M. D. Koebner, Lesley A. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsGenePseudogeneGene clusterSequence-tagged siteAmplified fragment length polymorphismGenetic markerGene mappingCommon wheatChromosomeGenomePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two sequence-tagged site (STS) markers for the wheat yellow rust resistance (R) gene Yr5 have been derived through the identification and characterization of linked amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs). The sequences of the 2 AFLP markers partially overlap with one another, but belong to discrete loci: S19M93-140 completely cosegregates with Yr5, whereas S23M41-310 maps at a distance of 0.7 cM. The DNA sequence of S23M41-310 shows significant homology with the 3' end of nucleotide-binding site (NBS) - leucine-rich repeat (LRR) - type R-genes, in particular with orthologues of the rice bacterial blight R-gene Xa-I. The distinct genetic location of the 2 AFLP loci suggests that Yr5 falls within an R-gene cluster. Because neither sequence forms part of a detectable transcription product, we propose that the Yr5 R-gene cluster includes R-gene analogues and pseudogenes. A Yr5 flanking simple sequence repeat (SSR) marker has also been identified, which allows Yr5 to be effectively incorporated, along with other R-genes for yellow rust, into elite wheat genetic backgrounds, through marker-assisted selection.

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)0.001
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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207