Response of Brassica napus lines containing all possible combinations of three clubroot resistance genes to infection by Plasmodiophora brassicae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canola (Brassica napus L.) has become a major field crop in Canada. One of the largest threats to canola production is the disease of clubroot caused by the soilborne pathogen Plasmodiophora brassicae. This disease can have devastating effects on canola yield and quality. Long-lived resting spores make this disease difficult to manage with few strategies proving to be effective. Currently, the most effective management tool is the development and deployment of host plant genetic resistance. We studied a double haploid population developed from crossing a male parent containing clubroot resistance genes PH1 and PH2 to a female parent containing clubroot resistance gene PH3. Molecular profiles for each of the three genes in the DH lines was determined. Planned crosses among a subset of the DH lines were then made to obtain 108 F1s with all possible homozygous and heterozygous combinations of PH1, PH2, and PH3.These 108 F1s 27 genotypes were tested in a greenhouse setting against P. brassicae pathotypes 3H, 3A, and 5X to phenotype their clubroot reaction. Disease index was compared between the 27 combinations of PH1, PH2, and PH3 represented within the 108 F1s. Results found evidence of an epistatic effect between PH2 and PH3 that improved disease resistance to a greater extent than was observed when either gene was in single heterozygous form. The results highlight the importance of verifying gene reactions through gene stacking to identify epistatic effects. Utilizing gene stacking could produce more durable and broad-spectrum clubroot resistant canola varieties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".