MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415513535 · doi:10.5376/tgg.2025.16.0007

Genome-Wide Association Mapping of Salt Tolerance in Barley Germplasm

2025· article· W4415513535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiamin Wang, Xian Zhang, Xuemei Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueTriticeae Genomics and Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermplasmHordeum vulgareAssociation mappingAbiotic stressSingle-nucleotide polymorphismPopulationSalinityGenetic associationGenome-wide association study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salt stress is the main abiotic factor that limits the productivity of barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) in global saline-alkali regions. This study employed genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) methods to reveal the genetic basis of salt tolerance in different barley germplasm resources. We evaluated a group of core germplasm resources under controlled salinity conditions and conducted high-resolution GWAS analysis using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. Our analysis identified several loci and candidate genes significantly associated with salt stress traits, including those involved in ion homeostasis, osmotic regulation, and stress signaling pathways. A case study focusing on North African germplasm resources highlighted key salt-tolerant genes, such as HvHKT1;5 and HvNHX1 , which further emphasizes their significance in breeding projects. Despite the challenges related to population structure and environmental variations, our research results demonstrate the practicality of GWAS in analyzing complex traits and guiding marker-assisted selection (MAS). This study laid the foundation for breeding salt-tolerant barley varieties and emphasized the value of integrating genomic tools into climate-adaptive agricultural breeding strategies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTriticeae Genomics and GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207