MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular Genetics of Self-incompatibility in Brassica napus

2000· article· en· W4255981118 on OpenAlexaff
N. Brugiere, Y. Cui, Y. Bi, M. Arnoldo, L. Jackman, Steven J. Rothstein

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLocus (genetics)GeneticsFosmidGeneBrassicaAllelePollenMendelian inheritanceBotanyGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-incompatibility (SI) is one of the mechanisms evolved by higher plants to promote outbreeding. In Brassica species, SI is controlled sporophytically by a single Mendelian genetic locus, the S-locus. Pollen rejection or acceptance is determined by the parental genotype, and pollen grains carrying the same allele as that present in the stigma are rejected. Among the genes identified so far from different S-haplotypes, the S-locus glycoprotein (SLG) and the S-locus receptor kinase (SRK) have been extensively studied. The current model of SI in Brassica postulates that a highly polymorphic pollen-borne ligand would be specifically recognized by SLG and/or SRK. This would activate a signal transduction pathway leading to rejection of self-pollen. We used a genomic approach in an attempt to identify a putative ligand gene. The S-locus regions of two functional Brassica napus S-haplotypes (910 and A14) were subcloned in Fosmid vectors and sequenced. New transcription units were identified by homology searches in the databases, gene prediction programs and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. The current study reports the structural features of both S-locus regions and a functional analysis using a transformation-based assay.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207