Study on the homology of the genomes of tetraploid Asiatic lilies (<i>Lilium</i>) using FISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asiatic lily cultivars, bred by hybridization and (or) chromosome doubling of species of section Sinomartagon of Lilium, are diploid, triploid, or tetraploid, but the homology of the genomes among species of section Sinomartagon and Asiatic lilies remains unclear. In the present research, two tetraploid Asiatic cultivars were analyzed, using 45S rDNA as probe, for their FISH karyotypes and their chromosomal association, anaphase I, telophase II, and pollen viability were surveyed to assess the multivalent segregation. Chromosomal assortment of six progenies of the two tetraploid cultivars were also investigated. The results showed that the tetraploid cultivars had similar FISH karyotypes, they predominantly formed multivalents, and these were equally separated because their anaphase I, telophase II, and pollen viability were similar to those of diploid species. Apart from minor variations, FISH karyotypes of progenies were similar to each other and to their parents. Based on these results and considering the high crossability among species of section Sinomartagon and (or) Asiatic lilies, we concluded that species of section Sinomartagon and their resulting cultivars share a common genome; thus, polyploidy Asiatic lilies are autopolyploid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".