MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226226318 · doi:10.5376/mpb.2022.13.0012

Study on the Genetic Relationship of Pepper Based on Fruit Traits and Molecular Markers

2022· article· en· W4226226318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiyi Gong, Xin Kong, Jianfeng Wang, Xianlei Chen, Feng Shao, Yuke Li, Xiaoxia Zhang, Ping Zhang, Ming Tang, Yin Yi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Plant Breeding · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesQinghai UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaLanzhou University
KeywordsGermplasmPepperBiologyGenetic diversityQuantitative trait locusBiotechnologySelection (genetic algorithm)Plant breedingGenetic variationHeritabilityAgronomyHorticultureEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGenePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore the genetic diversity of pepper germplasm resources in China and to improve the efficiency of pepper breeding. In this study, 45 pepper germplasm resources that came from USA and Guizhou province, China, were used to explore the quantitative traits of pepper fruits, and the ISSR analysis of germplasm resources genetic diversity. The results showed that the variance among eight quantitative traits of 45 peppers have a significant variation. The average genetic variation coefficient was 70.7%, and there were intricate correlations among the eight quantitative traits. Based on the fruit number traits, 45 pepper germplasms were clearly classified into six taxa by cluster analysis. The genetic diversity of pepper germplasm resources can be evaluated more accurately by molecular markers and phenotypic traits. This study provides a scientific basis for identification and evaluation of pepper germplasm resources, the selection of superior quality traits, and the selection of parents for crossbreeding.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Plant BreedingSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207