Comparative Association Mapping Reveals Conservation of Major Gene Resistance to White Pine Blister Rust in Southwestern White Pine (<i>Pinus strobiformis</i>) and Limber Pine (<i>P. flexilis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All native North American white pines are highly susceptible to white pine blister rust (WPBR) caused by Cronartium ribicola. Understanding genomic diversity and molecular mechanisms underlying genetic resistance to WPBR remains one of the great challenges in improvement of white pines. To compare major gene resistance (MGR) present in two species, southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis) Cr3 and limber pine (P. flexilis) Cr4, we performed association analyses of Cr3-controlled resistant traits using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assays designed with Cr4-linked polymorphic genes. We found that ∼70% of P. flexilis SNPs were transferable to P. strobiformis. Furthermore, several Cr4-linked SNPs were significantly associated with the Cr3-controlled traits in P. strobiformis families. The most significantly associated SNP (M326511_1126R) almost colocalized with Cr4 on the Pinus consensus linkage group 8, suggesting that Cr3 and Cr4 might be the same R locus, or have localizations very close to each other in the syntenic region of the P. strobiformis and P. flexilis genomes. M326511_1126R was identified as a nonsynonymous SNP, causing amino acid change (Val376Ile) in a putative pectin acetylesterase, with coding sequences identical between the two species. Moreover, top Cr3-associated SNPs were further developed as TaqMan genotyping assays, suggesting their usefulness as marker-assisted selection (MAS) tools to distinguish genotypes between quantitative resistance and MGR. This work demonstrates the successful transferability of SNP markers between two closely related white pine species in the hybrid zone, and the possibility for deployment of MAS tools to facilitate long-term WPBR management in P. strobiformis breeding and conservation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".