MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408953347 · doi:10.1007/s10681-025-03486-8

Multi-environment field trials indicate strong genetic control of seed polyphenol accumulation in faba bean

2025· article· en· W4408953347 on OpenAlexaff
Shirin Mohammadi, Randy W. Purves, Martin Paliocha, Anne Kjersti Uhlen, Stefano Zanotto

Bibliographic record

VenueEuphytica · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersNorges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet
KeywordsBiologyPolyphenolField trialBotanyPlant physiologyAgronomyBiotechnologyAntioxidantBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The interest towards faba bean as a source of plant-based protein is strongly increasing and the improvement of faba bean grain quality is pivotal to achieve a wider adoption by the food and feed industries. This study characterizes ten faba bean cultivars grown in a multi-environment field trial in Norway for their seed phenolic profile using untargeted liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC–MS). The analyses identified 84 major phenolic compounds that significantly variates in their content across cultivars and locations. Variance component (VC) analyses found that genotype (G) and genotype by location (G × L) interaction VC were significant for all the identified compounds, with G having the strongest contribution to the phenotypic variance. Multivariate analyses indicated sizable differences in the phenolic profile of wild type/tannin containing cultivars, which were categorized in two distinguishable clusters mainly due to their different content of proanthocyanidins, prodelphinidins and flavan-3-ols. These results suggest that the improvement of faba bean grain quality can be achieved through breeding of new cultivars with specific phenolic profiles having enhanced health and nutritional properties.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuphyticaSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207