Segmental allotetraploidy and allelic interactions in buffelgrass (<i>Pennisetum ciliare</i>(L.) Link syn.<i>Cenchrus ciliaris</i>L.) as revealed by genome mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linkage analyses increasingly complement cytological and traditional plant breeding techniques by providing valuable information regarding genome organization and transmission genetics of complex polyploid species. This study reports a genome map of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link syn. Cenchrus ciliaris L.). Maternal and paternal maps were constructed with restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) segregating in 87 F1 progeny from an intraspecific cross between two heterozygous genotypes. A survey of 862 heterologous cDNAs and gDNAs from across the Poaceae, as well as 443 buffelgrass cDNAs, yielded 100 and 360 polymorphic probes, respectively. The maternal map included 322 RFLPs, 47 linkage groups, and 3464 cM, whereas the paternal map contained 245 RFLPs, 42 linkage groups, and 2757 cM. Approximately 70 to 80% of the buffelgrass genome was covered, and the average marker spacing was 10.8 and 11.3 cM on the respective maps. Preferential pairing was indicated between many linkage groups, which supports cytological reports that buffelgrass is a segmental allotetraploid. More preferential pairing (disomy) was found in the maternal than paternal parent across linkage groups (55 vs. 38%) and loci (48 vs. 15%). Comparison of interval lengths in 15 allelic bridges indicated significantly less meiotic recombination in paternal gametes. Allelic interactions were detected in four regions of the maternal map and were absent in the paternal map.
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) | 0.001 | 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".