MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984941571 · doi:10.1139/g09-093

Production and genetic analysis of partial hybrids from intertribal sexual crosses between<i>Brassica napus</i>and<i>Isatis indigotica</i>and progenies

2010· article· en· W1984941571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuqin Tu, Jian Sun, Xianhong Ge, Z.Y. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelfingBiologyHybridPloidyBrassicaPollenChromosomeMeiosisGeneticsBrassica rapaBotanyOpen pollinationGenomePollinationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the dye and medicinal plant Isatis indigotica (2n = 14) as pollen parent, intertribal sexual hybrids with Brassica napus (2n = 38, AACC) were obtained and characterized. Among a lot of F1 plants produced, only five hybrids (H1-H5) were distinguished morphologically from female B. napus parents by showing low fertility and some characters of I. indigotica, and also by having different chromosome numbers. H1-H4 had similar but variable chromosome numbers in their somatic and meiotic cells (2n = 25-30), and H5 had 2n = 19, the same number as the haploid of B. napus. GISH analysis of the cells from H1 and H5 detected one I. indigotica chromosome and one or two chromosome terminal fragments. New B. napus types with phenotypic and genomic alterations were produced by H1 after pollination by B. napus and selfing for several generations, and by H5 after selfing. A progeny plant (2n = 20) was derived from H1 after pollination by I. indigotica twice and had a phenotype similar to a certain type of B. rapa, showing that hybrid H1 likely retained all chromosomes of the A genome and lost some of the C genome in parental B. napus. The reasons for the formation of the partial hybrids with unexpected chromosomal complements and for the chromosome elimination are discussed.

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 score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207