MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120022413 · doi:10.1139/b03-088

Genome size, heterochromatin organisation, and ribosomal gene mapping in four species of <i>Ribes</i>

2003· article· en· W2120022413 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joëlle Chiche, Spencer Brown, Jean‐Claude Leclerc, Sonja Šiljak-Yakovlev

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRibesBiologyHeterochromatinChromosomeBotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four wild Ribes species (Ribes alpinum L., Ribes petraeum Wulf., Ribes rubrum L., and Ribes uva- crispa L.; all 2n = 2x = 16) were surveyed for their chromosome and genome organisation. Their genome size was assessed using flow cytometry. Ribes alpinum had 5.3% more nuclear DNA than did the three other species, whose average was 2C = 1.91 pg with 40.4% GC. In addition, GC- and AT-rich heterochromatin and rDNA (18S–5.8S–26S and 5S) patterns were studied using fluorochrome banding and double-target fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), respectively. Only GC-rich heterochromatin was detected, co-localizing with 18S–26S rDNA. Fluorochrome banding and FISH patterns revealed marked differences between species. Ribes alpinum and R. uva-crispa differed from R. rubrum and R. petraeum by the number of 18S–26S sites and the localization of 5S rDNA. Ribes alpinum and R. uva-crispa were differentiated by the number of 5S sites. Ribes rubrum and R. petraeum also differed by the number of 5S sites and by the size of the GC-rich band on the satellite chromosome pair. These results should contribute to a better understanding of phylogenetic relationships among these species.Key words: Ribes, flow cytometry, fluorochrome banding, FISH, rDNA, NORs.

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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207