Cytogenetic and molecular characterization of intergeneric hybrids between<i>Brassica napus</i>and<i>Orychophragmus violaceus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty-two intergeneric hybrids from a cross between Brassica napus (AACC, 2n = 38) cultivar Oro and the ornamental crucifer Orychophragmus violaceus (OO, 2n = 24) were produced without embryo rescue. The plants were classified into three groups based on morphological and cytological observations and RAPD banding patterns. Plants of Group I had morphological traits of both parents and 2n = 29 chromosomes. In these plants, 62.1% of the pollen mother cells (PMCs) had the pairing configuration 1 III + 9 II + 8 I; the remaining PMCs had 10 II + 9 I. The plants possessed 97.6-98.8% B. napus specific and 9.2-11.7% O. violaceus specific RAPD fragments. Plants of Group II exhibited novel morphological traits and possessed 2n = 35, 36, or 37 chromosomes. Plants of Group III were morphologically similar to B. napus and possessed 2n = 19, 37, 38, or 39 chromosomes. Plants of Group II and Group III had 94.1-99.4% B. napus specific RAPD fragments and no O. violaceus specific RAPD fragments. Chromosome fragments were observed in PMCs of most of the F1 plants in all groups. Based on the cytological results and RAPD analysis, it is suggested that genome doubling and chromosome elimination occurred in the intergeneric hybrids of B. napus x O. violaceus.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".