MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037528003 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2020.100977

Optimizing pollencounter for high throughput phenotyping of pollen quality in tomatoes

2020· article· en· W3037528003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, DavisFlorida Agricultural Experiment StationDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstCHEO Research InstituteUniversity of Florida
KeywordsPollenGermplasmMacroBiologyComputer scienceHorticultureBiotechnologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The macro “PollenCounter” in ImageJ was initially developed to assess pollen viability in grapevine. We set out to see if PollenCounter could be used to assess pollen number and viability in tomatoes.•We tested different optimization scenarios by adjusting the pollen size (100–900, 200–900 pixel2) and circularity of pollen grains (0.4–1, 0.5–1, and 0.6–1) on 31 microscopic images of stained tomato pollen. Both total pollen number and proportion of viable pollen were positively and significantly correlated with the outputs from manual counting. The scenario with 100–900 pixel2 pollen size and 0.4–1 circularity had the highest association for pollen number (r = 0.99) and pollen viability (r = 0.86). PollenCounter is 32-fold faster than manual counting.•We added a command to the macro to automatically save the outputs containing the number of total and viable pollen, avoiding transcription errors inherent to manual counting.•We successfully applied the optimized PollenCounter to discriminate tomato genotypes based on pollen number and pollen viability under heat stress. Our results show that PollenCounter, as an open-access macro, can be customized and improved to meet users’ needs. The use of PollenCounter can save time and money in pollen quality assessment. We outline the steps to optimize the macro for other samples or crop species. The optimized macro could allow efficient screening of a large germplasm collection for pollen thermo-tolerance and selection of best thermo-tolerant individuals in breeding programs.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.137 · 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