Use of diversity arrays technology markers for integration into a cotton reference map and anchoring to a recombinant inbred line map
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A diversity array technology (DArT) marker platform was developed for the cotton genome, to evaluate the use of DArT markers compared with AFLP markers in mapping and transferability across the mapping populations. We used a reference genetic map of tetraploid Gossypium L. that already contained ~5000 loci, which coalesced into 26 chromosomes, to anchor newly developed DArT and AFLP markers with the aim of further improving utility and map resolution. Our results indicated that the percentage of polymorphic DArT markers that could be genetically mapped (78.15%) was much higher than that of AFLP markers (22.28%). Sequence analysis of DArT markers indicated that a majority matched known expressed sequence tag (EST) sequences from tetraploid and diploid Gossypium species. A total of 794 Arabidopsis genes were homologous with various DArT marker sequences. Chromosomes 5(A), 7(A), 19(D), 23(D), and 24(D) had more Arabidopsis syntenic DArT markers than the other chromosomes. Anchoring DArT markers from the reference map to a recombinant inbred line (RIL) map indicated that DArT markers will speed the building of maps in de novo RIL populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it