Cytogenetic analyses of intergeneric hybrids between barley and nine species of <i>Elymus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".