MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312861452 · doi:10.1139/g00-043

Development of a set of near isogenic and backcross recombinant inbred lines containing most of the<i>Lycopersicon hirsutum</i>genome in a<i>L. esculentum</i>genetic background: A tool for gene mapping and gene discovery

2000· article· en· W4312861452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio J. Monforte, S. D. Tanksley

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLycopersiconBackcrossingIntrogressionGermplasmGeneticsInbred strainGenomePopulationGeneBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel population consisted of a set of 99 near isogenic lines (NILs) and backcross recombinant inbred lines (BCRILs) derived from a cross between the cultivated tomato Lycopersicon esculentum cv. E6206 and L. hirsutum accession LA1777 is presented. Most of the lines contain a single defined introgression from L. hirsutum in the L. esculentum genetic background and together, the lines provide a coverage of more than the 85% of the L. hirsutum genome. These lines represent a new tool to uncover the genetic resources hidden in L. hirsutum as well as to study the genes responsible of its unique biology. Furthermore, the study of the allelic frequency and heterozygosity among BCRILs showed that specific genomic regions were likely subjected to unintentional selection pressures during the stock development. Genes involved in the reproductive behavior and (or) pollen viability are hypothesized to be responsible for these alterations.Key words: germplasm, near isogenic line, tomato, genetic resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations123
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207