MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288238298 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1500243

Effect of inbreeding on pollen tube growth in diploid and tetraploid <i>Chamerion angustifolium</i>: Do polyploids mask mutational load in pollen?

2016· article· en· W2288238298 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian C. Husband

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsBiologyPollenPloidyPollen tubeInbreedingBotanyGeneticsPollinationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Deleterious recessive mutations are an important determinant of fitness (mutational load) in the sporophytic phase of plants and a major cause of inbreeding depression; however, their role in gametophyte function is less well documented but may account for variation in pollen tube growth and siring ability, especially between diploid and polyploid plants, which can mask the load. METHODS: We investigated the role of mutational load in pollen performance using the perennial polyploid Chamerion angustifolium by comparing tube growth of pollen, in styles and in growth medium, from inbred (selfed) and outbred diploids to that of inbred and outbred tetraploids. Pollen from tetraploids is expected to mask deleterious mutations more effectively in the outbred condition but reveal them after inbreeding. In contrast, gametophytes from diploids should express the same genetic load in inbred or outbred plants. KEY RESULTS: Pollen tube growth measured in growth medium was highest in outbred tetraploids and generally lower in inbred than outbred plants. The effect of selfing was significant in pollen from tetraploids but not diploids. The differential effect of selfing was also evident in the proportion of pollen reaching the base of styles, but the ploidy × pollination interaction was not significant. Selfing also had a negative effect on sporophyte fitness but was greater in diploids than tetraploids. CONCLUSIONS: Pollen performance is influenced by the expression of mutational load, which is masked in polyploids. This effect may partly explain strong siring success of tetraploids in this species.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207