MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094629028 · doi:10.1139/g04-128

A high-resolution karyotype of cucumber (<i>Cucumis sativus</i>L. 'Winter Long') revealed by C-banding, pachytene analysis, and RAPD-aided fluorescence in situ hybridization

2005· article· en· W2094629028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dal‐Hoe Koo, Hae-Woon Choi, Jeongki Cho, Yoonkang Hur, Jae-Wook Bang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology
KeywordsBiologyKaryotypeFluorescence in situ hybridizationCucumisMeiosisChromosomeHomologous chromosomeRAPDGeneticsMetaphaseMolecular biologyHeterochromatinCytogeneticsPloidyBotanyGenePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using molecular cytogenetic DNA markers, C-banding, pachytene analysis, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), a high-resolution karyotype was established in the cucumber. C-banding showed distinct hetero chromatic bands on the pericentromeric, telomeric, and intercalary regions of the chromosomes. The C-banding patterns were also consistent with the morphology of 4'-6-diamino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI)-stained pachytene chromosomes. Two repetitive DNA fragments, CsRP1 and CsRP2, were obtained by PCR and localized on the mitotic metaphase and meiotic pachytene chromosomes. CsRP1 was detected on the pericentromeric heterochromatic regions of all chromosomes, except chromosome 1. CsRP2 was detected on 5 (chromosomes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7) of 7 chromosomes. All homologous chromosome pairs could be distinguished by FISH using 2 RAPD markers. This is the first report on molecular karyotyping of mitotic and meiotic spreads of cucumber.

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 score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207