Functional synergy and genomic linkage of glyphosate resistance traits in <scp>Canada</scp> fleabane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Glyphosate resistance in Conyza canadensis (Canada fleabane) has been primarily attributed to non‐target‐site resistance (NTSR) mechanisms such as vacuolar sequestration, though these have not been formally elucidated. While a target‐site mutation at EPSPS2 (P106S) was recently identified, it failed to account for many resistant cases. These findings underscore the need to re‐evaluate the genetic basis of glyphosate resistance in this species. RESULTS Using an F 2 population derived from glyphosate‐resistant and susceptible biotypes, we disentangled the individual and combined effects of target‐site resistance (TSR) and NTSR. Dose–response phenotyping and genotyping revealed that NTSR conferred broad protection across a wide range of glyphosate doses, while TSR provided a more limited, dose‐dependent benefit. When both mechanisms were present, median lethal dose (LD 50 ) values greatly exceeded additive expectations, indicating a synergistic interaction. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping identified a major‐effect locus associated with NTSR on chromosome 4, with candidate genes linked to membrane transport and subcellular compartmentalization processes. Segregation distortion and recombination frequency estimates suggest moderate genetic linkage between TSR and NTSR loci, facilitating co‐inheritance of resistance alleles. CONCLUSION This study provides the first explicit quantitative analysis of gene × gene interactions underlying herbicide resistance in C. canadensis . By disentangling TSR and NTSR, we show that single copies of the TSR and NTSR alleles confer approximately nine‐fold and seven‐fold glyphosate resistance, respectively. When combined, these mechanisms exhibit synergism, resulting in resistance levels that exceed additive LD 50 expectations by more than two‐fold. Both TSR and NTSR loci have been mapped to chromosome 4, and moderate genomic linkage (~27% recombination) between them will likely contribute to the persistence and spread of high‐level resistance, even under low selection pressure. © 2025 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri‐Food 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".