Low responsiveness of six-rowed genotypes to androgenesis in barley does not have a pleiotropic basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A heterozygous mutant for the two- and six-rowed character was isolated in the barley cultivar Igri through application of sodium azide to isolated microspore cultures and posterior regeneration. Six-rowed and two-rowed homozygotic plants were subsequently identified in the self-pollinated M2progenies of the original heterozygous M1. Detailed molecular markers confirmed the isogenic nature of this recovered mutant and the original cultivar Igri. A comparative study of the anther culture response of this six-rowed induced mutant vs. diploid 'Igri' was performed to assess whether the two- or six-rowed gene influences anther culture response in barley through a pleiotropic effect or via linkage disequilibrium. No significant differences for any of the recorded variables throughout the in vitro regeneration process were detected between the 'Igri' six-rowed mutant and any of their two-rowed isogenic lines. This suggests that row-type association with anther culture response in barley cultivars is due to the effect of a tight linkage with other genes directly responsible for androgenic response.Key words: androgenesis, barley, linkage, mutation, pleiotropy, vrs1 locus.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".