Cytological characterization of sunflower by in situ hybridization using homologous rDNA sequences and a BAC clone containing highly represented repetitive retrotransposon-like sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work we report new tools for the characterization of the complete chromosome complement of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), using a bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clone containing repetitive sequences with similarity to retrotransposons and a homologous rDNA sequence isolated from the sunflower genome as probes for FISH. The rDNA signal was found in 3 pairs of chromosomes, coinciding with the location of satellites. The BAC clone containing highly represented retroelements hybridized with all the chromosome complement in FISH, and used together with the rDNA probe allowed the discrimination of all chromosome pairs of sunflower. Their distinctive distribution pattern suggests that these probes could be useful for karyotype characterization and for chromosome identification. The karyotype could be subdivided into 3 clear-cut groups of 12 metacentric pairs, 1 submetacentric pair, and 4 subtelocentric pairs, thus resolving previously described karyotype controversies. The use of BAC clones containing single sequences of specific markers and (or) genes associated with important agricultural traits represents an important tool for future locus-specific identification and physical mapping.
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 | 0.001 | 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".