A microsatellite sequence from the rice blast fungus (<i>Magnaporthe grisea</i>) distinguishes between the centromeres of<i>Hordeum vulgare</i>and<i>H. bulbosum</i>in hybrid plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A TC/AG-repeat microsatellite sequence derived from the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe grisea) hybridized to all of the centromeres of Hordeum vulgare chromosomes, but hybridized faintly or not at all to the chromosomes of Hordeum bulbosum. Using this H. vulgare centromere-specific probe, the chromosomes of four F1 hybrids between H. vulgare and H. bulbosum were analyzed. The chromosome constitution in the root tips of the hybrids was mosaic, i.e., 7 (7v, H. vulgare) and 14 (7v + 7b H. bulbosum), or 14 (7v + 7b) and 27 (14v + 13b), or 7 (7v), 14 (7v + 7b), and 27 (14v + 13b). The 27-chromosome tetraploid hybrid cells were revealed to have the NOR (nucleolus organizer region) bearing chromosome of H. bulbosum in a hemizygous state, which might indicate some role for this chromosome in the chromosome instability of the hybrid condition. The chromosomal distribution showed that the chromosomes of H. vulgare were concentric and chromosomes of H. bulbosum were peripheral in the mitotic squash. This non-random chromosome distribution and the centromere-specific repeated DNA differences in the two species were discussed in relation to H. bulbosum chromosome elimination. Meiotic chromosome analyses revealed a high frequency of homoeologous chromosome pairing in early prophase. However, this chromosome pairing did not persist until later meiotic stages and many univalents and chromosome fragments resulted. These were revealed to be H. bulbosum by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with the H. vulgare centromere-specific probe. Because the chromosome segregation of H. vulgare and H. bulbosum chromosomes at anaphase I of meiosis was random, the possibility for obtaining chromosome substitution lines in diploid barley from the diploid hybrid was 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".