MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367669017 · doi:10.1002/tpg2.20309

Wheat doubled haploids have a marked prevalence of chromosomal aberrations

2023· article· en· W4367669017 on OpenAlexaff
Sandesh Shrestha, Dal‐Hoe Koo, Byron Evers, Shuangye Wu, Sean Walkowiak, Pierre Hucl, Curtis Pozniak, Allan K. Fritz, Jesse Poland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Genome · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian International Grains Institute
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyKansas Wheat CommissionUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsBiologyGermplasmDoubled haploidyGeneticsPloidyPopulationGenomeKaryotypeChromosomeBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double haploid (DH) population development is widely used in many crops, including wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), to rapidly produce fixed germplasm for breeding and genetic studies. The genome shock that takes place during DH induction could induce chromosomal aberrations that can impact genome integrity and subsequently plant fitness and agronomic performance. To evaluate the extent of chromosomal aberrations that exist as a result of the DH process, we studied two wheat DH populations: CDC Stanley×CDC Landmark and KS13H9×SYMonument. We utilized high-throughput skim sequencing to construct digital karyotypes of these populations to quantify deletions and aneuploidy with high resolution and accuracy, which was confirmed in selected plants by cytological analysis. The two populations studied showed high proportion of abnormal primary DH lines, 55 and 45%, respectively, based on at least one abnormality per progeny. The chromosomal abnormalities are genetically unstable and were observed segregating in the subsequent generations. These observations have important implications for the use of DH lines in genetics and breeding.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant GenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207