Genomic relationships among diploid and polyploid species of the genus <i>Eryngium</i> L. using genomic in situ hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eryngium L. (Umbelliferae) is a large genus including more than 250 species worldwide. The large morphological variability in this genus makes it difficult to delimit the species or to establish phylogenetic relationships. The occurrence of different ploidy levels within the genus might indicate a hybrid origin of the polyploid species. In the present study, the chromosome number and karyotype of E. regnellii are reportedfor the first time and the ploidy level of a population of E. paniculatum is confirmed. We compare the genomes of the diploids E. horridum and E. eburneum, the tetraploids E. megapotamicum and E. regnellii, and the hexaploids E. pandanifolium (as a representative of the whole pandanifolium complex) and E. paniculatum using genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). Although it was not possible to identify the parental species of the polyploid taxa analyzed, the GISH technique allowed us to postulate some hypotheses about their origin. Eryngium horridum and E. eburneum do not seem to be the direct progenitors of the polyploids analyzed. On the other hand, it seems that other diploid species unrelated to E. horridum and E. eburneum are involved in their origin. Our results are consistent with morphological and phylogenetic studies, indicating a close relationship between the species of the series Latifolia.
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) | 0.001 | 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".