Isolation, characterization, and analysis of <i>Leymus</i>-specific DNA sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic Southern hybridization using labeled total genomic DNA of Leymus mollis as probe showed intense hybridization signals on all restriction enzyme digested DNA from five species of Leymus Hochst., and four species of Psathyrostachys Nevski. Experiments using the same L. mollis probe, but with unlabeled blocking DNA from Psathyrostachys, showed no hybridization at all. These two genera evidently had the same genomic content. Southern hybridization without blocking allowed identification of DNA fragments abundant in Leymus and Psathyrostachys. Fragments potentially specific to Leymus were cloned. Five repetitive DNA clones from L. mollis and L. arenarius were characterized: pLmIs1, pLmIs44, pLmIs51, pLmIs53, and pLaIs56. These clones hybridized to both Leymus and Psathyrostachys on Southern blots - no clone hybridized to only one of these genera. Both Southern blot and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) experiments showed that all the clones contained dispersed repetitive sequences. They painted all and whole chromosomes uniformly except at centromeres, telomeres, and nucleolar organiser regions. Three of these clones, i.e., pLmIs1, pLmIs44, and pLmIs53, were essentially specific to Leymus and Psathyrostachys - little or no hybridization was detected in other genera such as Triticum, Hordeum, Thinopyrum, or Elymus. Sequence analysis further revealed that the clones were part of retroelements. In particular, the clone pLmIs44 produced hybridization profiles suitable for analysis of genetic relatedness among species. The present study shows that Leymus and Psathyrostachys share the same basic genome, Ns, and therefore provides strong evidence for combining these two genera.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".