Inheritance of Resistance to <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i> subsp. <i>kurstaki</i> in <i>Trichoplusia ni</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic inheritance of resistance to a commercial formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki was examined in a Trichoplusia ni colony initiated from a resistant population present in a commercial vegetable greenhouse in British Columbia, Canada. Progeny of F(1) reciprocal crosses and backcrosses between F(1) larvae and resistant (P(R)) and susceptible (P(S)) populations were assayed at different B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki concentrations. The responses of progeny of reciprocal F(1) crosses were identical, indicating that the resistant trait was autosomal. The 50% lethal concentration for the F(1) larvae was slightly higher than that for P(S), suggesting that resistance is partially recessive. The responses of both backcross progeny (F(1) x P(R), F(1) x P(S)) did not correspond to predictions from a single-locus model. The inclusion of a nonhomozygous resistant parental line in the monogenic model significantly increased the correspondence between the expected and observed results for the F(1) x P(R) backcross but decreased the correspondence with the F(1) x P(S) backcross results. This finding suggests that resistance to B. thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki in this T. ni population is due to more than one gene.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".