Genomic affinities revealed by GISH suggests intergenomic restructuring between parental genomes of the paleopolyploid genus <i>Zea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work compares the molecular affinities, revealed by GISH, with the analysis of meiotic pairing in intra- and interspecific hybrids between species of Zea obtained in previous works. The joint analysis of these data provided evidence about the evolutionary relationships among the species from the paleopolyploid genus Zea (maize and teosintes). GISH and meiotic pairing of intraspecific hybrids revealed high genomic affinity between maize (Zea mays subsp. mays) and both Zea mays subsp. parviglumis and Zea mays subsp. mexicana. On the other hand, when Zea mays subsp. huehuetenanguensis DNA was probed on maize chromosomes, a lower affinity was detected, and the pattern of hybridization suggested intergenomical restructuring between the parental genomes of maize. When DNA from Zea luxurians was used as probe, homogeneous hybridization signals were observed through all maize chromosomes. Lower genomic affinity was observed when DNA from Zea diploperennis was probed on maize chromosomes, especially at knob regions. Maize chromosomes hybridized with Zea perennis DNA showed hybridization signals on four chromosome pairs: two chromosome pairs presented hybridization signal in only one chromosomal arm, whereas four chromosome pairs did not show any hybridization. These results are in agreement with previous GISH studies, which have identified the genomic source of the chromosomes involved in the meiotic configurations of Z. perennis × maize hybrids. These findings allow postulating that maize has a parental genome not shared with Z. perennis, and the existence of intergenomic restructuring between the parental genomes of maize. Moreover, the absence of hybridization signals in all maize knobs indicate that these heterochromatic regions were lost during the Z. perennis genome evolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".