ITS sequence variation supports the hybrid origin of<i>Malus toringoides</i>Hughes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malus toringoides (Rehd.) Hughes was suggested to have originated from hybridization between Malus transitoria Schneid. and Malus kansuensis Rehd., followed by repeated backcrossing to one of the putative parents. In the present study, the sequence information of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) was used to re-examine the origin of this species. A total of 69 accessions from three natural populations (Maerkang, Xiaba and Kehe, Aba Autonomous Region, Sichuan, China) of M. toringoides and 10 accessions of its putative parents were analyzed. Using Malus angustifolia (Ait.) Michx., Malus ioensis (Wood) Britt. and Malus doumeri Chev. as outgroups, our phylogenetic analysis of the ITS sequences of M. toringoides and its putative parents showed that M. toringoides was not monophyletic, and two different types of ITS sequences which were obtained from each of the six accessions of M. toringoides were found to have clustered separately with those of the two putative parent species on the gene tree. A comparison of the sequence variation between M. toringoides and its putative parents revealed an additive variation pattern of ITS sequences in the putative hybrid species. These results are consistent with the previous morphological and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) data which suggested that M. toringoides was of hybrid origin. Our ITS data provide new molecular evidence for the hybrid origin hypothesis of M. toringoides and these results are of great importance for future study on hybridization, polyploid speciation and evolution of the genus Malus Miller.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".