Chromosomal localization of two novel repetitive sequences isolated from the <i>Chenopodium quinoa</i> Willd. genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chromosomal organization of two novel repetitive DNA sequences isolated from the Chenopodium quinoa Willd. genome was analyzed across the genomes of selected Chenopodium species. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with the repetitive DNA clone 18-24J in the closely related allotetraploids C. quinoa and Chenopodium berlandieri Moq. (2n = 4x = 36) evidenced hybridization signals that were mainly present on 18 chromosomes; however, in the allohexaploid Chenopodium album L. (2n = 6x = 54), cross-hybridization was observed on all of the chromosomes. In situ hybridization with rRNA gene probes indicated that during the evolution of polyploidy, the chenopods lost some of their rDNA loci. Reprobing with rDNA indicated that in the subgenome labeled with 18-24J, one 35S rRNA locus and at least half of the 5S rDNA loci were present. A second analyzed sequence, 12-13P, localized exclusively in pericentromeric regions of each chromosome of C. quinoa and related species. The intensity of the FISH signals differed considerably among chromosomes. The pattern observed on C. quinoa chromosomes after FISH with 12-13P was very similar to GISH results, suggesting that the 12-13P sequence constitutes a major part of the repetitive DNA of C. quinoa.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".