MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981818344 · doi:10.1139/g05-112

Karyological analysis of an interspecific hybrid between the dioecious<i>Silene latifolia</i>and the hermaphroditic<i>Silene viscosa</i>

2006· article· en· W1981818344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michaela Marková, Martina Lengerová, Jitka Žlůvová, Bohuslav Janoušek, Boris Vyskot

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBiologySileneChromosomeGenomeMeiosisGeneticsPollenBotanyEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Silene is a good model for studying evolution of the sex chromosomes, since it includes species that are hermaphroditic and dioecious, while maintain a basic chromosome number of 2n = 24. For some combinations of Silene species it is possible to construct interspecific hybrids. Here, we present a detailed karyological analysis of a hybrid between the dioecious Silene latifolia as the maternal plant and a related species, hermaphroditic Silene viscosa, used as a pollen partner. Using genomic probes (the genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) technique), we were able to clearly discriminate parental genomes and to show that they are largely separated in distinct nuclear domains. Molecular GISH and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) markers document that the hybrid genome of somatic cells was strictly additive and stable, and that it had 12 chromosomes originating from each parent, including the only X chromosome of S. latifolia. Meiotic analysis revealed that, although related, respective parental chromosomes did not pair or paired only partially, which resulted in frequent chromosome abnormalities such as bridges and irregular non-disjunctions. GISH and FISH markers clearly document that the larger genome of S. latifolia and its largest chromosome component, the X chromosome, were mostly employed in chromosome lagging and misdivision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207