Molecular marker analysis of 24- and 25-chromosome plants obtained from<i>Solanum tuberosum</i>L. subsp.<i>andigena</i>(2<i>n</i>= 4<i>x</i>= 48) pollinated with a<i>Solanum phureja</i>haploid inducer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clones with 24 or 25 chromosomes were obtained by pollinating an Andean cultivated tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum subsp. andigena clone 94H94, 2n = 4x = 48) with the Solanum phureja haploid-inducer clone 1.22. Their genetic composition was analyzed in an RAPD assay using 135 decamer primers and in an RFLP assay using 45 single-copy DNA probes. In total, 22 RAPD and 20 RFLP markers were found to be specific to S. phureja. None of these markers were found in the 24- and 25-chromosome clones. RFLP genotypes for the 45 RFLP loci were further determined for each clone. Genotypes of the 24-chromosome clones were characterized using two alleles randomly selected from four alleles of the parental tetraploid clone for almost all RFLP loci. Five 25-chromosome clones had extra alleles for all of the RFLP loci of chromosomes 4, 8, 10, 11, and 12, respectively, suggesting primary trisomy for one of these chromosomes. Clones with genotypes showing double reduction were also identified. Therefore, the obtained clones likely originated from random samples of female gametes, and hence are euhaploids or aneuhaploids of S. tuberosum subsp. andigena, strongly supporting parthenogenesis to be a primary mechanism for haploid induction in potato.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".