Phylogenetic relationships between annual and perennial species of <i>Helianthus</i>: evolution of a tandem repeated DNA sequence and cytological hybridization experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amplification and chromosomal localization of tandem repeated DNA sequences from Helianthus annuus (clone HAG004N15) and the physical organization of ribosomal DNA were studied in annual and perennial species of Helianthus. HAG004N15-related sequences, which did not show amplification in other Asteraceae except for Viguiera multiflora, were redundant in all the Helianthus species tested, but their frequency was significantly higher in perennials than in annuals. These sequences were located at the ends and intercalary regions of all chromosome pairs of annual species. A similar pattern was found in the perennials, but a metacentric pair in their complement was not labelled. Ribosomal cistrons were carried on two chromosome pairs in perennials and on three pairs in annuals except for H. annuus, where rDNA loci were on four pairs. No difference was observed between cultivated H. annuus and its wild accessions in the hybridization pattern of the HAG004N15 and ribosomal probes. These findings support the hypothesis that the separation between annual and perennial Helianthus species occurred through interspecific hybridization involving at least one different parent. However, GISH in H. annuus using genomic DNA from the perennial Helianthus giganteus as blocking DNA failed to reveal different genomic assets in annual and perennial species.
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".