Mapping clubroot resistance of <i>Brassica rapa</i> introgressed into <i>Brassica napus</i> and development of molecular markers for the resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To date, more than 20 clubroot resistance (CR) loci have been reported in the A‐genome of Brassica rapa; however, only a few of them has been introgressed into B. napus canola. The introgression of additional CR loci will broaden the genetic base of resistance of this crop. In this paper, we report the genetic basis of CR of B. rapa var. pekinensis cultivar ‘Bilko’ introgressed into B. napus, mapping this resistance using a recombinant inbred line (RIL) population developed from B. napus × Bilko‐CR interspecific cross. Evaluation of the F2 and F3 populations of Bilko revealed that a single gene controls resistance to pathotype 3 in this cultivar. Quantitative trait loci‐seq approach using whole‐genome resequencing identified a genomic region of chromosome A03 associated with this resistance in the RIL population. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)‐based allele‐specific markers from the TIR‐NB‐LRR (TNL) gene Bra012688 co‐segregated with this resistance, however, with 0.4–0.8% recombination. Bra012688 is located at 23,877,250–23,883,169 bp of B. rapa cultivar Chiifu‐401 whole‐genome assembly v.3.0, and at 378 bp downstream of another TNL gene Bra012689. Molecular markers, linked to previously reported CR loci of A03, did not co‐segregate with the resistance in the RIL population; this demonstrates the need for the development of new markers for the CR loci following introgression into the recipient species. The knowledge and the SNP allele‐specific markers developed in this study could be used in breeding for clubroot resistance in B. napus.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".