Fingerprint construction through genotyping by sequencing for applied breeding in <i>Brassica rapa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the genotyping by sequencing (GBS) protocol for fingerprinting Brassica rapa, and the data derived were more reliable than the re-sequencing data of B. rapa. Of the 10 enzyme solutions used to analyze the numbers of genotypes and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in B. rapa, five solutions showed better results, namely, A (HaeIII, 450–500 bp), E (RsaI+HaeIII, 500–550 bp), F (RsaI+HaeIII, 500–600 bp), G (RsaI+HaeIII, ‘All’ fragment), and J (RsaI+EcoRV-HF®, ‘All’ fragment). The five enzyme solutions showed less than 40% similarity in different individuals from various samples, and 90% similarity between two individuals from one sample. The E enzyme solution was the most suitable for fingerprinting B. rapa, revealing well-distributed SNPs in the whole genome. Of the 82 highly inbred lines and 18 F1 lines of B. rapa sequenced by GBS in the E enzyme solution, known parents of 10 F1 lines were verified, and male parents were discovered for 8 F1 lines that had only known female parents. This study provides a valuable method for screening parents for F1 lines in B. rapa for the efficient evaluation of GBS with varied library construction strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".