Characterizing polyploidy in<i>Arabidopsis lyrata</i>using chromosome counts and flow cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protocols were developed for both chromosome counts and flow cytometry to assess ploidy level and DNA content for populations of Arabidopsis lyrata L. sampled from Europe (Arabidopsis lyrata subsp. petraea), North America (Arabidopsis lyrata subsp. lyrata), and Japan (Arabidopsis lyrata subsp. kawasakiana). Ploidy variation within this species is not clear, with previous studies having documented both diploid and tetraploid populations. Chromosome counts in this study confirmed ploidy expectations for all populations examined. Individuals from Iceland and North America were diploid (2n = 2x = 16), whereas those from Japanese and Austrian populations were tetraploid (2n = 4x = 32). Flow cytometry was also used successfully to distinguish between ploidy levels, but the need to calibrate DNA content measures with chromosome counts was demonstrated by a deviation from the expected 2:1 ratio between tetraploid and diploid values among European populations (A. lyrata subsp. petraea). This deviation might be explained by a hybrid (allopolyploid) origin or by genomic changes following polyploidization, emphasizing the dynamic nature of polyploid genomes. Variation in DNA content among families was found only for North American populations, but these individuals were sampled from a broader geographic range than those from other regions.Key words: cytogenetics, flow cytometry, polyploidy, Arabidopsis lyrata, genome size, chromosome counts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".