Development of Barley (<i>Hordeum vulgare</i>L.) Lines with Altered Starch Granule Size Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscope analysis of starches prepared from 139 barley genotypes identified a Japanese genotype, Kinai Kyoshinkai-2 (KK-2), with altered starch granule size distribution. Compared to normal barley starch, KK-2 produced consistently higher volumes of starch granules with 5-15 μm diameter and reduced volumes of starch granules with >15 μm diameter when grown in different environments. A cross between KK-2 and normal starch cultivar CDC Kendall was made and led to the production of 154 F5 lines with alterations to the normal 7:3:1 distribution for A-:B-:C-type starch granule volumes. Three F5 lines showed unimodal starch granule size distribution due to apparent lack of very small (<5.0 μm diameter) C-type starch granules, but the phenotype was accompanied by reduced grain weight and total starch concentration. Five F5 lines produced a significantly larger population of large (>15 μm diameter) A-type starch granules as compared to normal starch and showed on average a 10:4:1 distribution for A-:B-:C-type starch granule volumes. The unusual starch phenotypes displayed by the F5 lines confirm starch granule size distribution in barley can be genetically altered.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".