Population Genomics Related to Adaptation in Elite Oat Germplasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six hundred thirty five oat ( L.) lines and 4561 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) loci were used to evaluate population structure, linkage disequilibrium (LD), and genotype-phenotype association with heading date. The first five principal components (PCs) accounted for 25.3% of genetic variation. Neither the eigenvalues of the first 25 PCs nor the cross-validation errors from = 1 to 20 model-based analyses suggested a structured population. However, the PC and = 2 model-based analyses supported clustering of lines on spring oat vs. southern United States origin, accounting for 16% of genetic variation ( < 0.0001). Single-locus -statistic () in the highest 1% of the distribution suggested linkage groups that may be differentiated between the two population subgroups. Population structure and kinship-corrected LD of = 0.10 was observed at an average pairwise distance of 0.44 cM (0.71 and 2.64 cM within spring and southern oat, respectively). On most linkage groups LD decay was slower within southern lines than within the spring lines. A notable exception was found on linkage group Mrg28, where LD decay was substantially slower in the spring subpopulation. It is speculated that this may be caused by a heterogeneous translocation event on this chromosome. Association with heading date was most consistent across location-years on linkage groups Mrg02, Mrg12, Mrg13, and Mrg24.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".