MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095431342 · doi:10.1139/g02-068

Identification of wheat-barley translocations by sequential GISH and two-colour FISH in combination with the use of genetically mapped barley SSR markers

2002· article· en· W2095431342 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
É. Nagy, Márta Molnár‐Láng, Gabriella Linc, Iain Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHungarian Scientific Research FundFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsChromosomal translocationBiologyCentromereGeneticsChromosomeGenomeMicrosatelliteGene mappingHordeum vulgareBreakpointGeneBotanyPoaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five wheat-barley translocations in a wheat background were characterized through the combination of cytogenetic and molecular genetic approaches. The wheat chromosome segments involved in the translocations were identified using sequential GISH and two-colour FISH with the probes pSc119.2 and pAs1. The barley chromatin in these lines was identified using SSR markers. A total of 45 markers distributed over the total barley genome were selected from a recently published linkage map of barley and tested on the translocation lines. The following translocations were identified: 2DS.2DL-1HS, 3HS.3BL, 6BS.6BL-4HL, 4D-5HS, and 7DL.7DS-5HS. Wheat-barley disomic and ditelosomic addition lines for the chromosomes 3HS, 4H, 4HL, 5H, 5HL, and 6HS were used to determine the correct location of 21 markers and the position of the centromere. An intragenomic translocation breakpoint was detected on the short arm of the barley chromosome 5H with the help of SSR marker analysis. Physical mapping of the SSR markers on chromosomes 1H and 5H was carried out using the intragenomic and the interspecific translocation breakpoints, as well as the centromere, as physical landmarks.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207