Regeneration of somatic hybrids in relation to the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of wheat and<i>Setaria italica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatic hybridization via PEG (Polyethylene 6000)-mediated protoplast fusion was achieved between two different wheat culture lines (Triticum aestivum L., "Jinan"177, T1 and T2) and Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. The T1 recipient originated from non-regenerable long-term cell suspensions, while T2 was derived from embryogenic calli with a high regeneration capacity. Donor protoplasts were obtained from embryogenic calli of S. italica (S) (with low regeneration capacity) irradiated with different doses of ultraviolet light. Twenty-three putative hybrid cell lines were produced in fusion combinations with the donor protoplasts treated with UV light for 30 s (combination I) and 1 min (combination II), but only one (from combination II) differentiated into green plants. Three cell lines from combination I and five cell lines from combination II possessed the nuclear genomes of T1, T2, and S. italica as revealed by cytological, isozyme, RAPD, and 5S rDNA spacer sequence analyses. Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) analysis showed that most hybrid cell lines had 22-36 wheat chromosomes, 0-2 S. italica chromosomes, and 1-6 wheat - S. italica recombinant chromosomes, whereas the regenerable cell line had 44-56 wheat chromosomes and 3-6 recombinant chromosomes, but no intact S. italica chromosomes. RFLP analysis of organellar DNA revealed that mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA of both parents coexisted in all hybrid cell lines and recombined in most hybrid cell lines. These results indicate that the regeneration of hybrid plants involves not only the integration of S. italica nuclear and organellar DNA, but also the genome complementation of T1 and T2.
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".