MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008256806 · doi:10.1139/g01-043

The genetic identity of alien chromosomes in potato breeding lines revealed by sequential GISH and FISH analyses using chromosome-specific cytogenetic DNA markers

2001· article· en· W2008256806 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fenggao Dong, J. Mitchell McGrath, John P. Helgeson, Jiming Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChromosomeGeneticsMetaphaseFluorescence in situ hybridizationgenomic DNADNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) is one of the most popular and effective techniques for detecting alien chromatin introgressed into breeding lines; however, GISH analysis alone does not reveal the genetic identity of the alien chromosomes. We previously isolated a set of bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) specific to each of the 12 potato chromosomes. These BAC clones can be used as chromosome-specific cytogenetic DNA markers (CSCDMs) for potato chromosome identification. Here we demonstrate that GISH and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), using CSCDMs, can be performed sequentially on the same chromosome preparations. Somatic metaphase chromosomes prepared using an enzymatic digestion and "flame-drying" procedure allows repeated probing up to five times without significant damage to chromosome morphology. The sequential GISH and FISH analyses reveal the genomic origin and genetic identity of the alien chromosomes in a single experiment and also determine whether an alien chromosome has been added to the genetic background of potato or is substituting for a homoeologous potato chromosome. The sequential GISH and FISH procedures should be widely applicable for germplasm characterization, especially in plant species with small-sized chromosomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207