Unexpected Inheritance Pattern of Erianthus arundinaceus Chromosomes in the Intergeneric Progeny between Saccharum spp. and Erianthus arundinaceus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erianthus arundinaceus is a valuable source of agronomic traits for sugarcane improvement such as ratoonability, biomass, vigor, tolerance to drought and water logging, as well as resistance to pests and disease. To investigate the introgression of the E. arundinaceus genome into sugarcane, five intergeneric F1 hybrids between S. officinarum and E. arundinaceus and 13 of their BC1 progeny were studied using the genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) technique. In doing so, we assessed the chromosome composition and chromosome transmission in these plants. All F1 hybrids were aneuploidy, containing either 28 or 29 E. arundinaceus chromosomes. The number of E. arundinaceus chromosomes in nine of the BC1 progeny was less than or equal to 29. Unexpectedly, the number of E. arundinaceus chromosomes in the other four BC1 progeny was above 29, which was more than in their F1 female parents. This is the first cytogenetic evidence for an unexpected inheritance pattern of E. arundinaceus chromosomes in sugarcane. We pointed to several mechanisms that may be involved in generating more than 2n gametes in the BC1 progeny. Furthermore, the implication of these results for sugarcane breeding programs was discussed.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it