MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470815863 · doi:10.1139/gen-2016-0034

Genetics and molecular mapping of resistance to <i>Plasmodiophora brassicae</i> pathotypes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 in rutabaga (<i>Brassica napus</i> var. <i>napobrassica</i>)

2016· article· en· W2470815863 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Muhammad Jakir Hasan, Habibur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Canola Producers CommissionAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsClubrootBiologyBrassicaCanolaDoubled haploidyGeneticsPopulationGenePloidyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clubroot disease, caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae, is a threat to the production of Brassica crops including oilseed B. napus. In Canada, several pathotypes of this pathogen, such as pathotypes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, were identified, and resistance to these pathotypes was found in a rutabaga (B. napus var. napobrassica) genotype. In this paper, we report the genetic basis and molecular mapping of this resistance by use of F 2 , backcross (BC 1 ), and doubled haploid (DH) populations generated from crossing of this rutabaga line to a susceptible spring B. napus canola line. The F 1 , F 2 , and BC 1 populations were evaluated for resistance to pathotype 3, and the DH population was evaluated for resistance to pathotypes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. A 3:1 segregation in F 2 and a 1:1 segregation in BC 1 were found for resistance to pathotype 3, and a 1:1 segregation was found in the DH population for resistance to all pathotypes. Molecular mapping by using the DH population identified a genomic region on chromosome A8 carrying resistance to all five pathotypes. This suggests that a single gene or a cluster of genes, located in this genomic region, is involved in the control of resistance to these pathotypes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207