GISH characterization of <i>Erianthus arundinaceus</i> chromosomes in three generations of sugarcane intergeneric hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within Erianthus, a genus close to Saccharum, the species E. arundinaceus has the potential to contribute valuable traits to sugarcane, including adaptation to biotic and abiotic stresses and ratooning ability. Sugarcane breeders have tried for a long time to use Erianthus species in their breeding programs but until recently were constrained by a lack of fertile Saccharum x Erianthus hybrids. We report here for the first time the chromosome composition of fertile Saccharum officinarum x E. arundinaceus F1, BC1 (F1 x sugarcane cultivar), and BC2 (BC1 x sugarcane cultivar) hybrids. The F1 and BC2 resulted from n + n chromosome transmission, while the BC1 resulted from 2n + n transmission. In the BC1 clones, the number of E. arundinaceus chromosomes ranged from 21 to 30, and in the BC2 clones, the number ranged from 14 to 15, revealing cases of chromosome loss. No recombination events between Saccharum and Erianthus chromosomes were observed in either the BC1 or BC2 clones. The implications of these results for introgression of genes from E. arundinaceus in sugarcane breeding programs are discussed. We propose a strategy to identify the agronomic value of chromosomes from E. arundinaceus and to conduct targeted breeding based on this information.
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".