MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044017644 · doi:10.1139/g04-042

Simultaneous painting of three genomes in hexaploid wheat by BAC-FISH

2004· article· en· W2044017644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peng Zhang, Wanlong Li, Bernd Friebe, Bikram S. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyGenomeRetrotransposonBacterial artificial chromosomeTransposable elementGeneticsFluorescence in situ hybridizationAegilops tauschiiChromosomeRestriction fragment length polymorphismLocus (genetics)GenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is widely used in the physical mapping of genes and chromosome landmarks in plants and animals. Bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) contain large inserts, making them amenable for FISH mapping. In our BAC-FISH experiments, we selected 56 restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP)-locus-specific BAC clones from the libraries of Triticum monococcum and Aegilops tauschii, which are the A- and D-genome donors of wheat (Triticum aestivum, 2n = 6x = 42), respectively. The BAC clone 676D4 from the T. monococcum library contains a dispersed repeat that preferentially hybridizes to A-genome chromosomes, and two BAC clones, 9I10 and 9M13, from the Ae. tauschii library contain a dispersed repeat that preferentially hybridizes to the D-genome chromosomes. These repeats are useful in simultaneously discriminating the three different genomes in hexaploid wheat, and in identifying intergenomic translocations in wheat or between wheat and alien chromosomes. Sequencing results show that both of these repeats are transposable elements, indicating the importance of transposable elements, especially retrotransposons, in the genome evolution of wheat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207