MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2371139069

Analysis of Genetic Variation in Anti-aphid Generations of Germplasm Resources

2013· article· en· W2371139069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunping Wang, Wei Zhang, Kong Xinxin, Liming Wang, Dong Puhui, Yu Zhenpeng

Bibliographic record

VenueSeed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmAphidBiologyBackcrossingPopulationGenotypeGeneticsMendelian inheritanceGenetic analysisHorticultureAgronomyGeneVeterinary medicineDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study,the synthetic wheat line 98-10-35 is resistant and the synthetic wheat line 1376 is susceptible to S.avenae in greenhouse and field tests.Several related populations including F1,F2,F3 and BC1 bred from 98-10-35/1376 are analyzed by genetic model,combining ability,gene frequency and genotypic frequency.Results indicated that: backcross population of BC1 was a single normal distribution,BC2,two normal distribution,then the proportion of the 1 ∶1 segregation ratio,the performance of a single dominant gene.The gene and genotype frequencies were:P(A)=46.7%,P(a)=53.3%,P(AA)=21.8%,P(Aa)=49.8%,P(aa)=28.4%.The combining ability analysis showed that the general combining ability 0.006 16,specific combining ability-0.220 41;The phenotypic identification results from the field showed that 98-10-35 and F1 were resistance to aphid,and the resistance analysis of their F2 segregation populations showed that both segregation ratios were corresponding with the expected Mendelian segregation ratio of 3 ∶1 by Chi-square value(x2=1.667,P=0.168)suggested that the aphid resistance in wheat lines 98-10-35 to 1376 was controlled by a single dominant gene respectively.In order to provide theoretical support and guidance for practical work for the wheat aphid resistance breeding,we analyzed genetic variation in anti-aphid generations of germplasm resources.

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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeedSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207