MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203740205 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98934-5

Genomic background selection to reduce the mutation load after random mutagenesis

2021· article· en· W3203740205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nirosha L. Karunarathna, Dilan S. R. Patiranage, Hans‐Joachim Harloff, Niharika Sashidhar, Christian Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielChinesisch-Deutsche Zentrum für WissenschaftsförderungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMutagenesisSelection (genetic algorithm)MutationGeneticsComputational biologyComputer scienceBiologyGeneArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Random mutagenesis is a standard procedure to increase allelic variation in a crop species, especially in countries where the use of genetically modified crops is limited due to legal constraints. The chemical mutagen EMS is used in many species to induce random mutations throughout the genome with high mutation density. The major drawback for functional analysis is a high background mutation load in a single plant that must be eliminated by subsequent backcrossing, a time and resource-intensive activity. Here, we demonstrate that genomic background selection combined with marker-assisted selection is an efficient way to select individuals with reduced background mutations within a short period. We identified BC 1 plants with a significantly higher share of the recurrent parent genome, thus saving one backcross generation. Furthermore, spring rapeseed as the recurrent parent in a backcrossing program could accelerate breeding by reducing the generation cycle. Our study depicts the potential for reducing the background mutation load while accelerating the generation cycle in EMS-induced winter oilseed rape populations by integrating genomic background selection.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207