MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078779943 · doi:10.1139/g04-034

A direct repeat sequence associated with the centromeric retrotransposons in wheat

2004· article· en· W2078779943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hidetaka Ito, Shuhei Nasuda, Takashi R. Endo

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSumitomo Foundation
KeywordsRetrotransposonBiologyHordeum vulgareGenomeGeneticsRepeated sequenceCentromereLong terminal repeatInterspersed repeatHordeumgenomic DNAFluorescence in situ hybridizationTransposable elementChromosomeDNAGeneBotanyPoaceaeHuman genome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high-density BAC filter of Triticum monococcum was screened for the presence of a centromeric retrotransposon using the integrase region as a probe. Southern hybridization to the BAC digests using total genomic DNA probes of Triticum monococcum, Triticum aestivum, and Hordeum vulgare detected differentially hybridizing restriction fragments between wheat and barley. The fragments that hybridized to genomic DNA of wheat but not to that of barley were subcloned. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis indicated that the clone pHind258 hybridized strongly to centromeric regions in wheat and rye and weakly to those in barley. The sequence of pHind258 was homologous to integrase and long terminal repeats of centromeric Ty3-gypsy retrotransposons of cereal species. Additionally, pHind258 has a pair of 192-bp direct repeats. FISH analysis indicated that the 192-bp repeat probe hybridized to centromeres of wheat and rye but not to those of barley. We found differential FISH signal intensities among wheat chromosomes using the 192-bp probe. In general, the A-genome chromosomes possess strong FISH signals, the B-genome chromosomes possess moderate signals, and the D-genome chromosomes possess weak signals. This was consistent with the estimated copy numbers of the 192-bp repeats in the ancestral species of hexaploid 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207