Review Apomixis in cassava: advances and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cassava is the most important staple crop in the Tropics and Subtropics. Apomixis may revolutionize its production due to various attributes. These potential advantages include production by true seed, maintaining cultivar superiority over generations without segregation, and avoiding contamination by bacteria and viruses. Historically, apomixis was initially observed by International Institute of Tropical Agriculture researchers, in the 1980s, in homogenous progeny of hybrid crosses. Later, from 1980 through 2010, apomixis was extensively studied by Universidade de Brasília, in order to determine contributing mechanisms and occurrence. Apomixis genes occur naturally at low frequencies in cultivated cassava and can be transferred by crosses with wild species. Apparently, apomixis in cassava is controlled by more than one recessive gene, which act in an additive form. Aneuploidy is associated with apomixis in cassava and can provide the double dosages necessary for recessive gene action. By using molecular techniques, genetic homogeneous progeny has been demonstrated, while embryonic exams have shown nucellar multiembryos. Polyploidy was found to increase apomixis percentage. From an evolutionary viewpoint, polyploidy has contributed to production of new species, when combined with apomixis. Recently, somatic embryos have been detected in the integument, revealing a rare model of apomixis that has only been documented in cassava.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".