Molecular cytogenetic characterization of<i>Aegilops biuncialis</i>and its use for the identification of 5 derived wheat – A<i>egilops biuncialis</i>disomic addition lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the experiments was to produce and identify different Triticum aestivum-Aegilops biuncialis disomic addition lines. To facilitate the exact identification of the Ae. biuncialis chromosomes in these Triticum aestivum-Ae. biuncialis disomic additions, it was necessary to analyze the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) pattern of Ae. biuncialis (2n = 4x = 28, U(b)U(b)M(b)M(b)), comparing it with the diploid progenitors (Aegilops umbellulata, 2n = 2x = 14, UU and Aegilops comosa, 2n = 2x = 14, MM). To identify the Ae. biuncialis chromosomes, FISH was carried out using 2 DNA clones (pSc119.2 and pAs1) on Ae. biuncialis and its 2 diploid progenitor species. Differences in the hybridization patterns of all chromosomes were observed among the 4 Ae. umbellulata accessions, the 4 Ae. comosa accessions, and the 3 Ae. biuncialis accessions analyzed. The hybridization pattern of the M genome was more variable than that of the U genome. Five different wheat-Ae. biuncialis addition lines were produced from the wheat-Ae. biuncialis amphiploids produced earlier in Martonvásár. The 2M, 3M, 7M, 3U, and 5U chromosome pairs were identified with FISH using 3 repetitive DNA clones (pSc119.2, pAs1, and pTa71) in the disomic chromosome additions produced. Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) was used to differentiate the Ae. biuncialis chromosomes from wheat, but no chromosome rearrangements between wheat and Ae. biuncialis were detected in the addition lines.
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".