MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908690176 · doi:10.3390/mps3020028

Mapping Quantitative Trait Loci onto Chromosome-Scale Pseudomolecules in Flax

2020· article· en· W2908690176 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank M. You, Sylvie Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods and Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusFamily-based QTL mappingBiologyGeneticsCandidate geneSingle-nucleotide polymorphismChromosomeInclusive composite interval mappingMicrosatelliteGenome ScanGenomeGenetic markerGene mappingGeneAlleleGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative trait loci (QTL) are genomic regions associated with phenotype variation of quantitative traits. To date, a total of 313 QTL for 31 quantitative traits have been reported in 14 studies on flax. Of these, 200 QTL from 12 studies were identified based on genetic maps, the scaffold sequences, or the pre-released chromosome-scale pseudomolecules. Molecular markers for QTL identification differed across studies but the most used ones were simple sequence repeats (SSRs) or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). To uniquely map the SSR and SNP markers from different references onto the recently released chromosome-scale pseudomolecules, methods with several scripts and database files were developed to locate PCR- and SNP-based markers onto the same reference, co-locate QTL, and scan genome-wide candidate genes. Using these methods, 195 out of 200 QTL were successfully sorted onto the 15 flax chromosomes and grouped into 133 co-located QTL clusters; the candidate genes that co-located with these QTL clusters were also predicted. The methods and tools presented in this article facilitate marker re-mapping to a new reference, genome-wide QTL analysis, candidate gene scanning, and breeding applications in flax and other crops.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods and ProtocolsSame topicPlant Disease Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207