MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909402477 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n2p51

Identification of Early Tomato Fruit Ripening Loci by QTL-seq

2019· article· en· W2909402477 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eaknarin Ruangrak, Yongchen Du, Nang Myint Phyu Sin Htwe, Pimpan Pimorat, Jianchang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusCandidate geneRipeningBiologySolanumPreharvestGeneticsGeneHorticulturePostharvest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QTL-seq has been successfully studied in identifying major QTLs, markers, and candidate genes associated with traits that are important for crop improvement. Tomato earliness is an economically important trait and is a major current research focus recently. This paper reports the identification of tomato early ripening fruit locus facilitated by QTL-seq using a novel next-generation sequencing technology. Two DNA pools of phenotypes of F2 offspring from crosses between the Bone ММ (early ripening fruit, P1) and 071-440 (late ripening fruit, P2) cultivars of (Solanum lycopersicum) were bulked for sequencing and alignment analysis. Sequencing results revealed 434 SNP markers on chromosome 11, a candidate QTL at position 52,048,208 bp (named er-fruit) and a candidate gene, Solyc11g071510.1.1. The “er-fruit” as confirmed by the traditional QTL method was related to the early fruit ripening trait in tomato. Additionally, BLAST analysis to known homologies for Solyc11g071510.1.1 gene encodes glycoside hydrolases (GHs). GHs are functionally associated with cell wall degradation, fruit softening and ripening. Thus, GHs may be important in fruit softening, stimulating early fruit ripening in tomato. Our results confirmed that QTL-seq is effective method to identify candidate QTL loci, candidate genes and candidate markers.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207