Variations of tandem repeat, regulatory element, and promoter regions revealed by wheat–rye amphiploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the evolution of allopolyploids, 4 different combinations between wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and rye (Secale cereale L.) including 12 F1 hybrids and 12 derived amphiploids were analyzed and compared with their direct parental plants by PCR analysis using 150 wheat SSR (single sequence repeat) markers and by FISH analysis using a rye-specific repetitive sequence (pSc200) as a probe. Nine SSR markers amplified rye-specific fragments whose sizes ranged from 471 bp to 1089 bp. These fragments contain regulatory elements and (or) promoters. Some of these fragments were amplified from all 24 progenies, while others were amplified from a subset of the progenies. The disappearance of rye-specific fragments from some progenies was caused by sequence elimination or DNA modification. Marker Xgwm320 amplified a new fragment (403 bp), a rye-specific tandem repeat, from some of the progenies. Twenty-eight SSR markers displayed microsatellite variation in progenies derived from 'Chinese Spring' x 'Jinzhou-heimai', but none of the 150 SSR markers displayed microsatellite variation in the progenies derived from the other three combinations. FISH signals of pSc200 were eliminated from one telomere/subtelomere of 4 chromosomes of 'Kustro' during allopolyploidization and expanded in amphiploids derived from 'Chinese Spring' x 'AR106BONE'. Thus, allopolyploidization in wheat-rye can be accompanied by rapid variation of tandem repeats, regulatory elements, and promoter regions. The alterations of repetitive sequence pSc200 indicate coordination between the constituent genomes of the newly formed amphiploids. Different genetic backgrounds of parents appear to affect genome changes during allopolyploidization.
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) | 0.000 | 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".