MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394475330 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19795435

Construction of an evenly-distributed genetic map using contig-tag-SNPs for quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis of fiber-related traits in kenaf (<i>Hibiscus cannabinus</i> L.)

2022· dataset· en· W4394475330 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Xu, Xuebei Wan, Siyuan Chen, Ting Liu, Jianmin Qi, Jiantang Xu, Liwu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicHibiscus Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenafQuantitative trait locusHibiscusContigBiologyTraitGenetic analysisFiberGeneticsBotanyComposite materialComputer scienceGeneGenomeMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kenaf is one of the most important natural fiber crops worldwide, which aims at harvesting bast fiber. Mining QTL loci of fiber yield and quality traits will facilitate fiber improvement and molecular marker-assisted breeding in kenaf. In this study, Fuhong 952 and Zanyin No. 1 were used as parents to construct two mapping populations, F2 and F2:3, and an evenly distributed genetic linkage map was constructed by re-sequencing. The map contains 2512 contig-tag-SNP markers, and 18 linkage groups with a total length of 1287.63 cM and an average distance of 0.51 cM. Totally, 32 and 28 QTLs were detected in the F2 and F2:3 populations, respectively. Through Blast searching against the reference genome using the sequences of flanking molecular markers linked to QTLs, 374 candidate genes related to cell wall formation and photoperiod regulating flowering were found in these loci, including cellulose synthase-like genes, MYB genes, and Agamous-like genes. These findings could lay a foundation for the improvement of fiber-related traits and gene cloning in kenaf.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicHibiscus Plant Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207