Marker Trait Correlation Study for Fusarium wilt Resistance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The investigation was focused on transfer of the fusarium wilt resistance into elite cultivar. Screening of chickpea parents (ICC 506 EB and Vijay), 196 RIL’s (Obtained from ICRISAT, Hyderabad), F2and BC1F1 populations for fusarium wilt resistance were done by Pot culture method and wilt sick plot method. The BC1F1 segregated in 1:1 ratio for resistance and susceptibility and F2 progenies segregated in a ratio of 1 resistant and 3 susceptible. The RILs closely fit a 1:1 segregation ratio for resistance and susceptibility indicating that resistance to fusarium wilt was monogenic with the recessive allele conferring resistance to fusarium wilt in this population. The parents were screened with 43 SSR primers. 22 markers were identified polymorphic. The polymorphism ranged from 57.14 to 100.00 per cent. The PIC scores of SSR markers ranged between 0.0371 and 0.9226. The BC1F1 population screened with three polymorphic foreground markers (TR19, TA110 and GA16) and four polymorphic background markers (TS82, TA194, TA135 and TA 22). The reported markers linked to susceptibility and resistance proved their effectiveness and further can be exploited for maker assisted selection (MAS) of fusarium wilt resistance breeding in chickpea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".