MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046706148 · doi:10.1139/g07-071

Genome doubling and chromosome elimination with fragment recombination leading to the formation of <i>Brassica rapa</i>–type plants with genomic alterations in crosses with <i>Orychophragmus violaceus</i>

2007· article· en· W2046706148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Min Liu, Zaiyun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Agricultural Research Institute
KeywordsBiologyBrassica rapaIntrogressionGenomeGeneticsPloidyHybridChromosomeBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In distant hybridization of plants, nonclassical hybrids with unexpected chromosome complements, chromosome elimination, and genetic introgression have been well documented. We obtained intergeneric hybrids between Brassica rapa, B. rapa var. chinensis, and another cruciferous species, Orychophragmus violaceus, following embryo rescue. Hybrids mainly displayed phenotypes of B. rapa, although certain O. violaceus or novel characteristics also appeared. Variable numbers of chromosomes were observed in somatic cells in the roots of plantlets on medium and in ovaries and pollen mother cells (PMCs). However, higher numbers were recorded in the roots. GISH revealed that the majority of ovary cells and PMCs contained 20 chromosomes of B. rapa with or without individual O. violaceus chromosomes or fragments added or introgressed. AFLP analysis showed that fragments deleted from the B. rapa genome were much more frequent than novel and O. violaceus fragments. The mechanisms involved genome doubling and successive elimination of O. violaceus chromosomes accompanied by fragment recombination and introgression, producing B. rapa-type plants with modified genetic constitutions and phenotypes.

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 score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207