The fire blight resistance QTL on LG7 of Malus ×robusta 5 is not dependent on the avrRpt2EA 156 S/C amino acid switch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Malus × robusta 5, which has been the subject of extensive fire blight resistance research over time, is highly resistant or susceptible to the fire blight-causative bacterial pathogen, Erwinia amylovora – depending on the strain. M . × robusta 5 has been crossed with susceptible apple cultivars and rootstocks, and inoculated with several E . amylovora strains in order to study the genetics and mechanism of its fire blight resistance and susceptibility. A strong resistance QTL was first mapped on linkage group 3 (LG3) of M . × robusta 5 using an F1 progeny derived from a cross with the apple cultivar ‘Idared’ in Germany. This QTL was confirmed in two other F1 populations derived from crossing M . × robusta 5 with the rootstock ‘Malling 9’ in New Zealand, and with ‘Ottawa 3’ in the USA. A second QTL on LG7 was detected in the ‘Idared’ × M . × robusta 5 population but only with strains that break the LG3 QTL. However, in the US population of ‘Ottawa 3’ × M . × robusta 5, the LG7 QTL was detected regardless of strain-specificity, unlike in the New Zealand population of ‘Malling 9’ × M . × robusta 5 where the LG7 QTL was not also detected. Here, we report the detection of the LG7 QTL in a different ‘Malling 9’ × M . × robusta 5 population in Germany, and confirm the independence of the LG7 locus to E. amylovora strains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".