Decades of Genetic Research on Soybean mosaic virus Resistance in Soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review summarizes the history and current state of the known genetic basis for soybean resistance to Soybean mosaic virus (SMV), and examines how the integration of molecular markers has been utilized in breeding for crop improvement. SVM causes yield loss and seed quality reduction in soybean based on the SMV strain and the host genotype. Understanding the molecular underpinnings of SMV–soybean interactions and the genes conferring resistance to SMV has been a focus of intense research interest for decades. Soybean reactions are classified into three main responses: resistant, necrotic, or susceptible. Significant progress has been achieved that has greatly increased the understanding of soybean germplasm diversity, differential reactions to SMV strains, genotype–strain interactions, genes/alleles conferring specific reactions, and interactions among resistance genes and alleles. Many studies that aimed to uncover the physical position of resistance genes have been published in recent decades, collectively proposing different candidate genes. The studies on SMV resistance loci revealed that the resistance genes are mainly distributed on three chromosomes. Resistance has been pyramided in various combinations for durable resistance to SMV strains. The causative genes are still elusive despite early successes in identifying resistance alleles in soybean; however, a gene at the Rsv4 locus has been well validated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".