MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323964299 · doi:10.4238/2013.september.12.2

Characterization and molecular mapping of a dwarf mutant in wheat

2013· article· en· W2323964299 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaohuan Jin, Dongfa Sun, H.Y. Li, Yan Yang, Guoju Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics and Molecular Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDwarfingBiologyGeneticsGeneMutantDwarfismGenetic analysisGenetic linkagePopulationColeoptileGene mappingChromosomeGenetic markerBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A spontaneous dwarf mutant of wheat was found in an F5 generation line derived from a cross between Huamai No. 9 and Een No. 1 in 1998; it was named Huaai 01. We characterized the genetic pattern of Huaai 01 and mapped the gene controlling the dwarf trait. This dwarf mutant was found insensitive to exogenous gibberellic acid treatment, based on the length of the first leaf and the coleoptile at the seedling stage, suggesting that it plays a crucial role in the gibberellin response pathway. Genetic analysis revealed that a single gene that is partially recessive controls the dwarf phenotype in Huaai 01. We named the dwarfing gene Rht-B2. Simple sequence repeats (SSR) were examined as identifying markers linked to the Rht-B2 gene in an F2 population. We screened 904 pairs of primers and identified 5 SSR markers linked to the Rht-B2 gene. Two markers, barc1096 and xgwm495, were located on the flanking region of the Rht-B2 gene at genetic distances of 2.9 and 3.3 cM, respectively. Based on published SSR linkage data for wheat, the Rht-B2 gene was mapped to the long arm of chromosome 4B. This identification and characterization of the Rht-B2 dwarfing gene will facilitate its utilization in wheat breeding.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics and Molecular ResearchSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207