An integrated restriction fragment length polymorphism - amplified fragment length polymorphism linkage map for cultivated sunflower
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) maps have been constructed for cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) using three independent sets of RFLP probes. The aim of this research was to integrate RFLP markers from two sets with RFLP markers for resistance gene candidate (RGC) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. Genomic DNA samples of HA370 and HA372, the parents of the F2 population used to build the map, were screened for AFLPs using 42 primer combinations and RFLPs using 136 cDNA probes (RFLP analyses were performed on DNA digested with EcoRI, HindIII, EcoRV, or DraI). The AFLP primers produced 446 polymorphic and 1101 monomorphic bands between HA370 and HA372. The integrated map was built by genotyping 296 AFLP and 104 RFLP markers on 180 HA370 x HA372 F2 progeny (the AFLP marker assays were performed using 18 primer combinations). The HA370 x HA372 map comprised 17 linkage groups, presumably corresponding to the 17 haploid chromosomes of sunflower, had a mean density of 3.3 cM, and was 1326 cM long. Six RGC RFLP loci were polymorphic and mapped to three linkage groups (LG8, LG13, and LG15). AFLP markers were densely clustered on several linkage groups, and presumably reside in centromeric regions where recombination is reduced and the ratio of genetic to physical distance is low. Strategies for targeting markers to euchromatic DNA need to be tested in sunflower. The HA370 x HA372 map integrated 14 of 17 linkage groups from two independent RFLP maps. Three linkage groups were devoid of RFLP markers from one of the two maps.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".