Production and meiotic pairing behaviour of new hybrids of winter wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i>) × winter barley (<i>Hordeum vulgare</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) x winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) hybrids produced using cultivated varieties (wheat 'Martonvásári 9 krl'(Mv9 krl) x barley 'Igri', Mv9 krl x 'Osnova', 'Asakazekomugi' x 'Manas') were multiplied in tissue culture because of the high degree of sterility and then pollinated with wheat to obtain backcross progenies. Meiotic analysis of the hybrids Mv9 krl x 'Igri' and 'Asakazekomugi' x 'Manas' and their in vitro regenerated progenies with the Feulgen method revealed 1.59 chromosome arm associations per cell in both initial hybrids. The number of chromosome arm associations increased after in vitro culture to 4.72 and 2.67, respectively, in the two combinations. According to the genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) analysis, wheat-barley chromosome arm associations made up 3.6% of the total in the initial Mv9 krl x 'Igri' hybrid and 6.6% and 16.5% of the total in in vitro regenerated progenies of the 'Asakazekomugi' x 'Manas' and Mv9 krl x 'Igri' hybrids, respectively. The demonstration by GISH of wheat-barley chromosome pairing in the hybrids and especially in their in vitro regenerated progenies proves the possibility of producing recombinants between these two genera, and thus of transferring useful characters from barley into wheat. In vitro conditions caused an increase in chromosome arm association frequency in both combinations and in fertility in some regenerants.
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 | 0.000 |
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".