Chromosome structure of<i>Triticum timopheevii</i>relative to<i>T. turgidum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chromosome structure of four different wild populations and a cultivated line of Triticum timopheevii (2n = 28, AtAtGG) relative to Triticum turgidum (2n = 28, AABB) was studied, using genomic in situ hybridisation (GISH) and C-banding analysis of meiotic configurations in interspecific hybrids. Two wild accessions and the cultivated line showed the standard C-banding karyotype. The other two accessions are homozygous for translocation 5At/3G and translocations 1G/2G and 5G/6G. GISH analysis revealed that all the T. timopheevii accessions carry intergenome translocations 6At/1G and 1G/4G and identified the position of the breakpoint in translocation 5At/3G. C-banding analysis of pairing at metaphase I in the hybrids with T. turgidum provides evidence that four species-specific translocations (6AtS/1GS, 1GS/4GS, 4GS/4AtL, and 4AtL/3AtL) exist in T. timopheevii, and that T. timopheevii and T. turgidum differ in the pericentric inversion of chromosome 4A. Bridge plus acentric fragment configurations involving 4AL and 4AtL were identified in cells at anaphase I. This result suggests that the paracentric inversion of 4AL from T. turgidum does not exist in T. timopheevii. Both tetraploid species have undergone independent and distinct evolutionary chromosomal rearrangements. The position, intercalary or subdistal, of the breakpoints in species-specific translocations and inversions contrasts with the position, at or close to the centromere, of intraspecific translocations. Different mechanisms for intraspecific and species-specific chromosome rearrangements are suggested.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".