MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402956202 · doi:10.5376/bm.2024.15.0008

Innovative Breeding Techniques for Cassava: The Role of Doubled Haploids and Genetic Engineering

2024· article· en· W4402956202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscience Methods · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotechnologyDoubled haploidyPlant breedingBiologyAgricultural engineeringEngineeringAgronomyGeneticsPloidyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz) is a crucial crop for food security in tropical and subtropical regions. However, its genetic improvement is hindered by its long breeding cycle and heterozygous nature. This study explores innovative breeding techniques, focusing on the role of doubled haploids (DH) and genetic engineering in accelerating cassava breeding. Doubled haploid technology, which enables the rapid production of homozygous lines, has been successfully applied in various crops and holds promise for cassava improvement. Techniques such as gynogenesis, another culture, and interspecific pollination are discussed for their potential to induce DHs in cassava. Additionally, advancements in genetic engineering, including CRISPR/Cas9 and other gene-editing tools, are examined for their role in enhancing DH production and incorporating desirable traits. The integration of these innovative techniques could significantly shorten the breeding cycle and improve cassava's adaptability to changing environmental conditions. This study highlights the current state of DH and genetic engineering technologies, their applications in cassava breeding, and future directions for research.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
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 venueBioscience MethodsSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207