MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900984386 · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01628

Combinations of Independent Dominant Loci Conferring Clubroot Resistance in All Four Turnip Accessions (Brassica rapa) From the European Clubroot Differential Set

2018· article· en· W2900984386 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Arvind H. Hirani, Feng Gao, Jun Liu, Guohua Fu, Chunren Wu, P. B. E. McVetty, Robert W. Duncan, Genyi Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Plant Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsMonsanto (Canada)University of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanola Council of CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsClubrootBrassica rapaBiologyBrassicaGeneCultivarResistance (ecology)AgronomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clubroot disease is devastating to Brassica crop production when susceptible cultivars are planted in infected fields. European turnips are the most resistant sources and their resistance genes have been introduced into other crops such oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.), Chinese cabbage and other Brassica vegetables. The European clubroot differential (ECD) set contains four turnip accessions (ECD1 to ECD4). These ECD turnips exhibited high levels of resistance to clubroot when they were tested under controlled environmental conditions with Canadian field isolates. Gene mapping of the clubroot resistance genes in ECD1 to ECD4 were performed and three independent dominant resistance loci were identified. Two resistance loci were mapped on chromosome A03 and the third on chromosome A08. Each ECD turnip accession contained two of these three resistance loci. Some resistance loci were homozygous in ECD accessions while others showed heterozygosity based on the segregation of clubroot resistance in 20 BC1 families derived from ECD1 to ECD4.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207