Intra- and intergenomic chromosome pairings revealed by dual-color GISH in trigenomic hybrids of<i>Brassica juncea</i>and<i>B. carinata</i>with<i>B. maurorum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From dual-color genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) analysis of three trigenomic hybrids, Brassica maurorum (MM, 2n = 16) x B. juncea (AABB, 2n = 36) (M.AB), B. maurorum x B. carinata (BBCC, 2n = 34) (M.BC), and B. carinata x B. maurorum (BC.M), the three genomes of each hybrid were distinguished and autosyndesis and allosyndesis were evaluated. In M.AB, up to two autosyndetic bivalents occurred among the chromosomes of each genome; a maximum of three allosyndetic bivalents appeared between A-B, A-M, and B-M genomes. The similar pairings in M.BC and BC.M suggested that the cytoplasm of B. maurorum or B. carinata had no obvious effect on chromosome pairing. In M.BC and BC.M, a maximum of one autosyndetic bivalent was found for B and M genomes, but two were found for the C genome; from 0 to 2 allosyndetic bivalents were observed between B-C, B-M, and C-M genomes. The B-M allosyndesis frequency was higher than the A-M or C-M allosyndesis frequency in these hybrids, revealing the closer relationship of B and M genomes. The allosyndesis frequency was higher than the autosyndesis frequency among A, B, and C genomes in these combinations, suggesting that intergenomic homoeology was higher than intragenomic homoeology. The implications for genome evolution and crop breeding are discussed.
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".