MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307621439 · doi:10.3390/plants11212905

Identification of Disease Resistance Parents and Genome-Wide Association Mapping of Resistance in Spring Wheat

2022· article· en· W4307621439 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Iqbal, Kassa Semagn, Diego Jarquín, Harpinder Randhawa, Brent McCallum, Réka Howard, Reem Aboukhaddour, Izabela Ciechanowska, Klaus Strenzke, José Crossa, J. Jesús Cerón‐Rojas, Amidou N’Diaye, Curtis Pozniak, Dean Spaner

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersSaskatchewan Wheat Development CommissionAlberta Wheat CommissionWestern Grains Research FoundationAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsBiologyRust (programming language)Genome-wide association studyAssociation mappingCultivarPlant disease resistanceGenotypeAgronomyGrain yieldLeaf spotQuantitative trait locusGenetic associationGeneticsSNPSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The likelihood of success in developing modern cultivars depend on multiple factors, including the identification of suitable parents to initiate new crosses, and characterizations of genomic regions associated with target traits. The objectives of the present study were to (a) determine the best economic weights of four major wheat diseases (leaf spot, common bunt, leaf rust, and stripe rust) and grain yield for multi-trait restrictive linear phenotypic selection index (RLPSI), (b) select the top 10% cultivars and lines (hereafter referred as genotypes) with better resistance to combinations of the four diseases and acceptable grain yield as potential parents, and (c) map genomic regions associated with resistance to each disease using genome-wide association study (GWAS). A diversity panel of 196 spring wheat genotypes was evaluated for their reaction to stripe rust at eight environments, leaf rust at four environments, leaf spot at three environments, common bunt at two environments, and grain yield at five environments. The panel was genotyped with the Wheat 90K SNP array and a few KASP SNPs of which we used 23,342 markers for statistical analyses. The RLPSI analysis performed by restricting the expected genetic gain for yield displayed significant (p < 0.05) differences among the 3125 economic weights. Using the best four economic weights, a subset of 22 of the 196 genotypes were selected as potential parents with resistance to the four diseases and acceptable grain yield. GWAS identified 37 genomic regions, which included 12 for common bunt, 13 for leaf rust, 5 for stripe rust, and 7 for leaf spot. Each genomic region explained from 6.6 to 16.9% and together accounted for 39.4% of the stripe rust, 49.1% of the leaf spot, 94.0% of the leaf rust, and 97.9% of the common bunt phenotypic variance combined across all environments. Results from this study provide valuable information for wheat breeders selecting parental combinations for new crosses to develop improved germplasm with enhanced resistance to the four diseases as well as the physical positions of genomic regions that confer resistance, which facilitates direct comparisons for independent mapping studies in the future.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFrench-language works237,207