MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1707297352 · doi:10.1139/g05-088

Genomic instability in <i>Solanum tuberosum</i> × <i>Solanum kurtzianum</i> interspecific hybrids

2006· article· en· W1707297352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos Federico Marfil, Ricardo W. Masuelli, Jerry Davison, Luca Comai

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Pathogens and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSecretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad de Buenos AiresUniversidad Nacional de Cuyo
KeywordsBiologySolanum tuberosumHybridAmplified fragment length polymorphismSolanumPloidyInterspecific competitionInterspecific hybridsGeneticsDNA methylationGenomeBotanyGenetic diversityGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of interspecific crosses in breeding is an important strategy in improving the genetic base of the modern cultivated potato, Solanum tuberosum L. Until now, it has normally been interspecific Solanum hybrids that have been morphologically and cytologically characterized. However, little is known about the genomic changes that may occur in the hybrid nucleus owing to the combination of genomes of different origin. We have observed novel AFLP bands in Solanum tuberosum x Solanum kurtzianum diploid hybrids; 40 novel fragments were detected out of 138 AFLP fragments analyzed. No cytological abnormalities were observed in the hybrids; however, we found DNA methylation changes that could be the cause of the observed genomic instabilities. Of 277 MSAP fragments analyzed, 14% showed methylation patterns that differed between the parental species and the hybrids. We also observed frequent methylation changes in the BC1 progeny. Variation patterns among F1 and BC1 plants suggest that some methylation changes occurred at random. The changes observed may have implications for potato breeding as an additional source of variability.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Pathogens and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207