10 research outputs found

    Detection and verification of malting quality QTLs using wild barley introgression lines

    Get PDF
    A malting quality quantitative trait locus (QTL) study was conducted using a set of 39 wild barley introgression lines (hereafter abbreviated with S42ILs). Each S42IL harbors a single marker-defined chromosomal segment from the wild barley accession ‘ISR 42-8’ (Hordeum vulgare ssp. spontaneum) within the genetic background of the elite spring barley cultivar ‘Scarlett’ (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare). The aim of the study was (1) to verify genetic effects previously identified in the advanced backcross population S42, (2) to detect new QTLs, and (3) to identify S42ILs exhibiting multiple QTL effects. For this, grain samples from field tests in three different environments were subjected to micro malting. Subsequently, a line × phenotype association study was performed with the S42ILs in order to localize putative QTL effects. A QTL was accepted if the trait value of a particular S42IL was significantly (P < 0.05) different from the recurrent parent as a control, either across all tested environments or in a particular environment. For eight malting quality traits, altogether 40 QTLs were localized, among which 35 QTLs (87.5%) were stable across all environments. Six QTLs (15.0%) revealed a trait improving wild barley effect. Out of 36 QTLs detected in a previous advanced backcross QTL study with the parent BC2DH population S42, 18 QTLs (50.0%) could be verified with the S42IL set. For the quality parameters α-amylase activity and Hartong 45°C, all QTLs assessed in population S42 were verified by S42ILs. In addition, eight new QTL effects and 17 QTLs affecting two newly investigated traits were localized. Two QTL clusters harboring simultaneous effects on eight and six traits, respectively, were mapped to chromosomes 1H and 4H. In future, fine-mapping of these QTL regions will be conducted in order to shed further light on the genetic basis of the most interesting QTLs

    Locating supplementary RFLP markers on barley chromosome 7 and synteny with homoeologous wheat group 5

    No full text
    International audienc

    O fim da cognição? Os estudos de ciência e tecnologia desafiam o conceito de agente cognitivo The end of cognition? Science and technology studies challenge the concept of the cognising agent

    No full text
    O conceito de 'cognição' ocupa um lugar central em ampla literatura nas ciências sociais e na filosofia, onde um pressuposto-chave consiste na conceituação do agente cognitivo enquanto unidade central de análise. Entretanto, desdobramentos recentes nos Estudos de Ciência e Tecnologia (ECT) questionam este pressuposto e sugerem as bases para a sua modificação. Este trabalho descreve e avalia estes desdobramentos. Ele examina algumas críticas à visão largamente aceita de ciência e sugere que não menos que uma ampla inversão analítica é necessária para desafiar certos conceitos arraigados sobre cognição. A partir de uma revisão panorâmica de sucessivas tentativas de estabelecer simetria nos ECT, o presente artigo considera três conjuntos de pressupostos-chave em relação à agência: 1. o que faz o agente?; 2. qual a natureza do agente?; e 3. por que agentes humanos deveriam possuir o monopólio dos atributos humanos?<br>The concept of 'cognition' is central to a wide literature in social science and philosophy where a key assumption conceptualises the central unit of analysis as a cognising agent. However, recent developments in Science and Technology Studies (STS) question this assumption and suggest the basis for its modification. The paper describes and evaluates these developments. It examines critiques of the "received view" of science and suggests that nothing less than a full scale analytic inversion is needed adequately to confront entrenched conceptions about cognition. It surveys progressive attempts to achieve symmetry in STS. It then considers three sets of key assumptions about agency: 1. what is the agent doing?; 2. what is the nature of the agent?; and 3. why should human agents have the monopoly on human attributes
    corecore