Reciprocal differences of morphological and DNA characters in interspecific hybridization in<i>Cucumis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant materials with different ploidy levels from a series of reciprocal crosses between a wild Cucumis species (Cucumis hystrix Chakr., 2n = 2x = 24) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus L., 2n = 2x = 14) were used to investigate reciprocal differences in morphology, fertility, and DNA characteristics. Diameter of the stem, length of the petiole, and shape and size of the leaves of the hybrids were intermediate when compared with their parents. The length of the internode of the main stem showed maternal transmission in all hybrids, but the branching number and appearance of the first female flower showed paternal transmission. The differences in fertility of reciprocal plants were significant. When C. hystrix was used as the female parent, the diploid (2n = 2x = 19) hybrids set fruit without seeds, whereas the amphidiploid (2n = 4x = 38) plants produced fruits with viable seeds. However, when cucumber was used as the female parent, both tetraploid and diploid hybrid plants were highly sterile and did not set fruits. To further investigate variation in hybrid genomes, 21 arbitrary primers were used for random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Reciprocal differences were detected for 15 primers. The banding patterns were different among the four types of hybrids, but there was no significant difference in the total and (or) average numbers of bands observed. We suggest that the differences in random amplified polymorphic DNA banding patterns of the hybrids are probably related to the paternal- and (or) maternal-transmitted morphological characteristics in the reciprocal cross.Key words: Cucumis, interspecific hybridization, reciprocal differences, random amplified polymorphic DNA markers, paternal and (or) maternal transmission.
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) | 0.002 | 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".