Genome analysis of<i>Elytrigia pycnantha</i>and<i>Thinopyrum junceiforme</i>and of their putative natural hybrid using the GISH technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH), using genomic DNA probes from Thinopyrum elongatum (Host) D.R. Dewey (E genome, 2n = 14), Th. bessarabicum (Savul. & Rayss) A. Love (J genome, 2n = 14), Pseudoroegneria stipifolia (Czern. ex Nevski) Love (S genome, 2n = 14), and Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertner (P genome, 2n = 14), was used to characterize the genome constitution of the polyploid species Elytrigia pycnantha (2n = 6x = 42) and Thinopyrum junceiforme (2n = 4x = 28) and of one hybrid population (2n = 5x = 35). GISH results indicated that E. pycnantha contains S, E, and P genomes; the first of these was closely related to the S genome of Ps. stipifolia, the second was closely related to to the E genome of Th. elongatum, and the third was specifically related to A. cristatum. The E and P genomes included 2 and 10 chromosomes, respectively, with S genome DNA sequences in the centromeric region. GISH analysis of Th. junceiforme showed the presence of two sets of the E genome, except for fewer than 10 chromosomes for which the telomeric regions were not identified. Based on these results, the genome formula SSPsPsEsEs is proposed for E. pycnantha and that of EEEE is proposed for Th. junceiforme. The genomic constitution of the pentaploid hybrid comprised one S genome (seven chromosomes), one P genome (seven chromosomes), and three E genomes (21 chromosomes). The E and P genomes both included mosaic chromosomes (chromosomes 1 and 5, respectively) with the centromere region closely related to S-genome DNA. On the basis of these data, the genome formula SPSESEE is suggested for this hybrid and it is also suggested that the two species E. pycnantha and Th. junceiforme are the parents of the pentaploid hybrid.
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".