Fluorescent in situ hybridization shows <i>DIPLOSPOROUS</i> located on one of the NOR chromosomes in apomictic dandelions (<i>Taraxacum</i>) in the absence of a large hemizygous chromosomal region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apomixis in dandelions (Taraxacum: Asteraceae) is encoded by two unlinked dominant loci and a third yet undefined genetic factor: diplosporous omission of meiosis (DIPLOSPOROUS, DIP), parthenogenetic embryo development (PARTHENOGENESIS, PAR), and autonomous endosperm formation, respectively. In this study, we determined the chromosomal position of the DIP locus in Taraxacum by using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) that genetically map within 1.2-0.2 cM of DIP. The BACs showed dispersed fluorescent signals, except for S4-BAC 83 that displayed strong unique signals as well. Under stringent blocking of repeats by C0t-DNA fragments, only a few fluorescent foci restricted to defined chromosome regions remained, including one on the nucleolus organizer region (NOR) chromosomes that contains the 45S rDNAs. FISH with S4-BAC 83 alone and optimal blocking showed discrete foci in the middle of the long arm of one of the NOR chromosomes only in triploid and tetraploid diplosporous dandelions, while signals in sexual diploids were lacking. This agrees with the genetic model of a single dose, dominant DIP allele, absent in sexuals. The length of the DIP region is estimated to cover a region of 1-10 Mb. FISH in various accessions of Taraxacum and the apomictic sister species Chondrilla juncea, confirmed the chromosomal position of DIP within Taraxacum but not outside the genus. Our results endorse that, compared to other model apomictic species, expressing either diplospory or apospory, the genome of Taraxacum shows a more similar and less diverged chromosome structure at the DIP locus. The different levels of allele sequence divergence at apomeiosis loci may reflect different terms of asexual reproduction. The association of apomeiosis loci with repetitiveness, dispersed repeats, and retrotransposons commonly observed in apomictic species may imply a functional role of these shared features in apomictic reproduction, as is discussed.
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) | 0.002 | 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".