DOP–PCR based painting of rye chromosomes in a wheat background
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the appropriateness of chromosome painting for identifying genomic elements in rye, we microdissected the 1R and 1RS chromosomes from rye (Secale cereale L. var. King II) and wheat-rye addition line 1RS, respectively. Degenerate oligonucleotide primed - polymerase chain reaction (DOP-PCR) amplification of 1R and 1RS products from dissected chromosomes were used as probes to hybridize to metaphase chromosomes of rye, wheat-rye addition lines 1R and 1RS, translocation line 1RS.1BL, and allohexaploid triticale. The results showed that (i) the hybridization signal distribution patterns on rye chromosomes using 1R-derived DOP-PCR products as the probe were similar to those using 1RS-derived DOP-PCR products as the probe; (ii) 1R and (or) 1RS could not be distinguished from other rye chromosomes solely by the hybridization patterns using 1R- and (or) 1RS-derived DOP-PCR products as the probe; (iii) rye chromosomes and (or) rye chromosome fragments could be clearly identified in wheat-rye hybrids using either 1R- or 1RS-derived DOP-PCR products as the probe and could be more accurate in the nontelomeric region than using genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). Our results suggested that 1R- and (or) 1RS-derived DOP-PCR products contain many repetitive DNA sequences, are similar on different rye chromosomes, are R-genome specific, and can be used to identify rye chromosomes and chromosome fragments in wheat-rye hybrids. Our research widens the application range of chromosome painting in plants.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".