Genome discrimination by in situ hybridization in Icelandic species of <i>Elymus</i> and <i>Elytrigia</i> (Poaceae: Triticeae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genome constitution of Icelandic Elymus caninus, E. alaskanus, and Elytrigia repens was examined by fluorescence in situ hybridization using genomic DNA and selected cloned sequences as probes. Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) of Hordeum brachyantherum ssp. californicum (diploid, H genome) probe confirmed the presence of an H genome in the two tetraploid Elymus species and identified its presence in the hexaploid Elytrigia repens. The H chromosomes were painted uniformly except for some chromosomes of Elytrigia repens which showed extended unlabelled pericentromeric and subterminal regions. A mixture of genomic DNA from H. marinum ssp. marinum (diploid, Xa genome) and H. murinum ssp. leporinum (tetraploid, Xu genome) did not hybridize to chromosomes of the Elymus species or Elytrigia repens, confirming that these genomes were different from the H genome. The St genomic probe from Pseudoroegneria spicata (diploid) did not discriminate between the genomes of the Elymus species, whereas it produced dispersed and spotty hybridization signals most likely on the two St genomes of Elytrigia repens. Chromosomes of the two genera Elymus and Elytrigia showed different patterns of hybridization with clones pTa71 and pAes41, while clones pTa1 and pSc119.2 hybridized only to Elytrigia chromosomes. Based on FISH with these genomic and cloned probes, the two Elymus species are genomically similar, but they are evidently different from Elytrigia repens. Therefore the genomes of Icelandic Elymus caninus and E. alaskanus remain as StH, whereas the genomes of Elytrigia repens are proposed as XXH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".