Fine Mapping of Lobed‐Leaf Genes in Two <i>Brassica napus</i> Lines Using SLAF Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant ideotypes may be useful for increasing yield in Brassica napus L., and leaves play an important role in the development of ideotypes. Previously, we bred two lobed‐leaf B. napus lines, ll1 and ll2. In the present study, we report the fine mapping of lobed‐leaf genes in ll1 and ll2 and annotate their putative functions. We conduct specific‐locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF‐seq) to determine the candidate intervals. Crosses between two lobed‐leaf lines ll1 and ll2 and their corresponding wild types el1 and el2 were used to generate two sets of F 1 and F 2 populations. Genome‐wide comparison of single‐nucleotide polymorphism profiles between lobed‐ and entire‐leaf bulks identified ll1 and ll2 candidate intervals on ChrA10. Lobed‐leaf gene ll1 was located in two regions within genomic positions 16,055,155 to 16,158,378 (100 kb in size) and 16,651,387 to 17,120,610 (470 kb in size), whereas the ll2 gene was located within the genomic region of 16,767,957 to 17,024,885 (260 kb in size), which overlapped with the second region of ll1 . These results suggest that the lobed‐leaf candidate genes for ll1 and ll2 are alleles. Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) analysis identified 139 genes and 49 genes in the associated regions of ll1 and ll2 , respectively. Approximately 135 genes in ll1 and 49 genes in ll2 could be functionally annotated, with the majority playing important roles in the regulation of leaf margin and leaf growth. These studies provide useful information for constructing ideotypes and breeding high‐yielding B. napus hybrids.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".