RNA-Seq Bulked Segregant Analysis of an Exotic B. napus ssp. napobrassica (Rutabaga) F2 Population Reveals Novel QTLs for Breeding Clubroot-Resistant Canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a rutabaga (Brassica napus ssp. napobrassica) donor parent FGRA106, which exhibited broad-spectrum resistance to 17 isolates representing 16 pathotypes of Plasmodiophora brassicae, was used in genetic crosses with the susceptible spring-type canola (B. napus ssp. napus) accession FG769. The F2 plants derived from a clubroot-resistant F1 plant were screened against three P. brassicae isolates representing pathotypes 3A, 3D, and 3H. Chi-square (χ2) goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the F2 plants inherited two major clubroot resistance genes from the CR donor FGRA106. The total RNA from plants resistant (R) and susceptible (S) to each pathotype were pooled and subjected to bulked segregant RNA-sequencing (BSR-Seq). The analysis of gene expression profiles identified 431, 67, and 98 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the R and S bulks. The variant calling method indicated a total of 12 (7 major + 5 minor) QTLs across seven chromosomes. The seven major QTLs included: BnaA5P3A.CRX1.1, BnaC1P3H.CRX1.2, and BnaC7P3A.CRX1.1 on chromosomes A05, C01, and C07, respectively; and BnaA8P3D.CRX1.1, BnaA8P3D.RCr91.2/BnaA8P3H.RCr91.2, BnaA8P3H.Crr11.3/BnaA8P3D.Crr11.3, and BnaA8P3D.qBrCR381.4 on chromosome A08. A total of 16 of the DEGs were located in the major QTL regions, 13 of which were on chromosome C07. The molecular data suggested that clubroot resistance in FGRA106 may be controlled by major and minor genes on both the A and C genomes, which are deployed in different combinations to confer resistance to the different isolates. This study provides valuable germplasm for the breeding of clubroot-resistant B. napus cultivars in Western Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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".