MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167976134 · doi:10.1139/g07-018

The genetic relationship among plant-height traits found using multiple-trait QTL mapping of a dent corn and popcorn cross

2007· article· en· W2167976134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuling Li, Yongbin Dong, Suzhun Niu, Dangqun Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusBiologyGermplasmTraitInbred strainGeneticsAgronomyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant height (PH) is one of the most important traits in maize breeding programs. In popcorn, inferior plant traits can be improved with the dent/flint corn germplasm. In the current study, a total of 259 F2:3 families, developed from a cross between a dent corn inbred and a popcorn inbred, were evaluated for 4 PH traits. Quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for each trait were detected using composite interval mapping methods. In addition, genetic interrelationships were investigated using multiple-trait joint analysis for PH with ear height (EH), and for PH with top height (TH). In total, 6, 5, 2, and 6 QTLs were identified for PH, EH, TH, and TH/PH in single-trait analysis, respectively. Joint-analysis data suggest a strong and complex genetic relationship between PH and EH, and between PH and EH, with no QTLs controlling any single trait independently. In addition, 4 kinds of QTLs detected were classified as closely linked QTLs, pleiotropic QTLs, QTLs with opposite effects, and additional QTLs. It was, consequently, difficult to improve lodge resistance through selection on any individual PH trait. The current study demonstrates that multiple-trait joint analysis not only identified additional QTLs, but also revealed the genetic relationship among different highly correlated traits at the molecular level.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207