The relation between pairing preference and chiasma frequency in tetrasomics of rye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association pattern of marked tetrasomes of Secale chromosome 1R at meiotic first metaphase was analyzed. Two of the four chromosomes were identical with terminal C-bands at both arms; the other two were also identical but lacked C-bands and were homologous or homeologous with the first two. Four different types of heterozygotes for 1R were studied: (i). autotetraploid hybrids between genetic variants within Secale cereale subsp. cereale, (ii). tetraploid hybrids between subspecies of Secale cereale, (iii). tetraploid hybrids between species of Secale, and (iv). autotetrasomes of S. cereale in a wheat background. Earlier observations that heterozygous associations (banded with unbanded) had consistently higher chiasma frequencies than homozygous associations were extended and confirmed. To analyze this phenomenon more closely, the possible relations between this correlation and several other meiotic phenomena were studied. For this analysis, three genetically different autotetraploid hybrids within S. cereale were selected that differed with respect to the relation between pairing type and chiasma frequency. Special attention was given to different patterns of interference and other meiotic phenomena in the two chromosome arms of chromosome 1R. No relations between such phenomena and the relation between pairing type and chiasma frequency could be established. A hypothesis is formulated assuming that long-distance homologue attraction is concentrated in a limited number of sites and that in different genotypes, different patterns of active sites are present. Moderately weak attraction sites can pair with strong homologous sites under favorable genetic conditions, but two weak sites cannot. Then, heterozygotes have more effective pairing initiation and consequently chiasma formation than homozygotes. Under less favorable conditions, only strong sites are effective, and then, homozygotes pair better, but the chiasma frequency is lower. A model of the forces involved in homologue attraction is presented.
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) | 0.001 | 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".