MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2885379615 · doi:10.1101/388256

The genetics and genome-wide screening of regrowth loci, a key component of perennialism in Zea diploperennis

2018· preprint· en· W2885379615 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNational Institute of Food and AgricultureSouth Dakota State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsHybridTraitKey (lock)Zea maysInbred strainPerennial plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perennialism is common among the higher plants, yet little is known about its inheritance. To address this, six hybrids were made by reciprocally crossing perennial Zea diploperennis Iltis, Doebley & R. Guzman with inbred lines B73 and Mo17 and Rhee Flint, a heirloom variety, of Z. mays L. ssp. mays. All the F1 plants demonstrated several cycles of growth, flowering, senescence and regrowth into normal flowering plants, indicating a dominant effect of the Z. diploperennis alleles. The regrowability (i.e. the plants' ability to regrow after senescence) was stably transmitted to progeny of the hybrids, so we focused on this trait. Segregation ratios in the F2 generations are consistent with the trait controlled by two dominant, complementary loci, but do not exclude the influence of other modifiers or environment. Genome-wide screening with genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) indicated two major regrowth loci, regrowth 1 and regrowth 2, were on chromosomes 2 and 7, respectively. These findings lay the foundation for further exploration of the molecular mechanism of regrowth in Z. diploperennis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals→French-language works237,207→