MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821981927 · doi:10.1139/g08-074

Cytogenetic analyses of intergeneric hybrids between barley and nine species of <i>Elymus</i>

2008· article· en· W1821981927 on OpenAlexaffvenue
N.-S. Kim, George Fedak, Fangpu Han, Guangwen Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyElymusHybridTriticeaeBivalent (engine)BotanyPloidyMeiocyteMeiosisHordeumPolyploidHordeum vulgareGeneticsPoaceaeGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild species in the Triticeae tribe are very valuable resources for agronomic improvement in cereal crop species. Intergeneric hybrids were produced between several barley cultivars and perennial species in the genera Elymus, Thinopyrum, and Pseudoroegneria. Caryopsis formation and subsequent plantlet regeneration from embryo culture were variable depending on the hybrid combinations. Chromosome numbers and hybrid identity were confirmed by GISH analysis on the somatic cells of the hybrids. While the hybrids showed very robust vegetative growth and exceeded the parental spikes in size, their floral morphologies resembled that of the wild species. Meiotic chromosome analysis revealed that the bivalent formation frequency per cell ranged from 0.06 in Hordeum vulgare 'Betzes' x Elymus curvatus to 3.0 in Elymus humidus x H. vulgare 'Manley'. By GISH analysis on the meiocytes of the hybrid E. humidus x 'Manley', the frequency of autosyndetic bivalents exceeded the allosyndetic bivalent formation, which gave an insight into the genome constitution of E. humidus as an autoallohexploid species. Regardless of the low allosyndetic chromosome pairing between barley and E. humidus, this combination may be useful for further input, since E. humidus is known to carry many valuable genes for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance.

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 score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207