MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066975481 · doi:10.1139/g09-098

Analysis of chromosomal structural polymorphisms in the St, P, and Y genomes of Triticeae (Poaceae)

2010· article· en· W2066975481 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiuxia Wang, Jishan Xiang, Ainong Gao, Xinming Yang, Weihua Liu, Xiuquan Li, Lihui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTriticeaeBiologyPoaceaeGenomeGeneticsElymusBotanyEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The St, P, and Y genomes are three important genomes in the tribe Triticeae, which includes many perennial species. To study polymorphisms within the chromosomes of the St, P, and Y genomes, a GISH-FISH method was developed that allowed them to be clearly distinguished. The karyotypes of five individuals from population Z1925 of Kengyilia grandiglumis (Keng) J.L. Yang et al. (2n = 6x = 42, StStPPYY) were analyzed. The results showed that there were structural polymorphisms in all of the chromosomes from the three individual genomes. The polymorphisms were found mainly in the terminal regions of chromosomes and infrequently near the centromeric region. Of all the chromosomes, 1P, 1St, 1Y, 2Y, 3St, and 3Y showed the most polymorphisms. The polymorphisms within the individual chromosomes suggested that more extensive and scientific conclusions regarding the origin and evolution of genomes in wild species of Triticeae would be achieved by studying a population as a sampling and analysis unit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207