Development of molecular markers and linkage maps for the <i>Carthamus</i> species <i>C. tinctorius</i> and <i>C. oxyacanthus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A set of SSR and RFLP markers for safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) and jeweled distaff thistle (C. oxyacanthus) was generated from cDNA and genomic libraries and by mining public and proprietary sequence databases. In total, 1412 PCR-based markers and 75 RFLP markers were screened and polymorphic loci were mapped in an intraspecific F2 population of C. tinctorius and an interspecific BC1 population of C. tinctorius x C. oxyacanthus. The two populations shared one common parent and the resulting linkage maps could be compared for synteny. The level of polymorphism was low in both populations and only 8.2% and 13.7% of the analyzed markers could be mapped in the intraspecific and interspecific maps, respectively. The two maps showed significant colinearity of markers in several regions and an apparent translocation or inversion event on one linkage group. Noticeable segregation distortion was found on one linkage group of the C. tinctorius map and dense clustering of loci occurred on several linkage groups of the C. oxyacanthus map. The two maps represent the first major linkage analysis of Carthamus species. The molecular tools will be useful for a variety of genetic and genomic applications in safflower and its related species and have been used in our laboratory to map a flower color gene in C. tinctorius.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".