MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401436389 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n9p19

Introduction of East African Diploid Cotton Genetic Variation Into Upland Cotton

2024· article· en· W4401436389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nafissatou Lalaïssa Nacoulima, Fatimata Hassedine Diouf, Ludivine Lassois

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPloidyMicrosatelliteChromosomeGeneticsGossypiumGenomeAlienGenetic markerGenetic analysisKaryotypeGossypium hirsutumBotanyGeneAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The African wild diploid cotton species, Gossypium longicalyx Hutch. & Lee. (2n = 2x = 26, F1F1) presents many valuable traits that can be introduced into Gossypium hirsutum to enhance its narrow genetic basis. To assess the possibility of using monosomic alien addition line (MAAL) of G. longicalyx in G. hirsutum in an interspecific breeding program, the progeny of ten MAALs was characterized. Chromosome counting allowed to identify the addition of single alien chromosome in 9 of the 10 lines studied. The analysis of the chromosome configurations at metaphase showed the presence of multivalent associations involving the supernumerary chromosome of G. longicalyx, indicating the occurrence of recombination between the G. longicalyx and G. hirsutum chromosomes. The use of microsatellite markers provided evidence of multiple introgressions of G. longicalyx DNA in the recipient species. It appeared from the SSR analysis that only four different supernumerary alien chromosomes were present in the studied MAALs. These results confirm the low genetic distance existing between the chromosomes of G. longicalyx and those of Ah sub-genome. They highlight the opportunities and constraints associated with the use of G. longicalyx in a breeding program of upland cotton.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicResearch in Cotton CultivationFrench-language works237,207