Can epigenetic control explain pronounced within-plant heterogeneity of meiosis in a translocation trisome of<i>Secale</i>L.?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meiotic metaphase I configuration frequencies were determined in different tillers of genetically related plants of rye ( Secale cereale L.) heterozygous for reciprocal translocation T248W (between chromosome arms 1RS and 6RS) and with an additional (telocentric) arm 1RS. Seventeen different configurations could be recognized, grouped into three categories. Very different configuration frequencies were found not only between sister plants from the same parents but also between tillers of the same plant grown under identical conditions (climate chambers at 15 °C and 20 °C). The heterogeneity reflects variation in chromosome pairing and crossing over, and is variable and unpredictable. Anthers within florets were homogeneous. Between tiller heterogeneity is insufficient to explain differences between sister plants. It is ascribed to random somatic variation in the conditions of the chromatin which, at meiosis, govern chromosome pairing. During sexual differentiation, these conditions are fixed and subsequent cell lineages have the same pairing and crossing over characteristics. As homology search is an activity of DNA, this control of pairing and crossing over, consistent over long cell lineages, may be considered to be epigenetic even when no realistic suggestions concerning its character can be given.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".