Genomic affinities in<i>Turnera</i>(subseries<i>Turnera</i>, Turneraceae) inferred by in situ hybridization techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subseries Turnera comprises a polyploid complex with ploidy levels ranging from diploid (2n = 2x = 10) to octoploid (2n = 8x = 40). The use of fluorescent in situ hybridization greatly improved the knowledge of the karyotypes of Turnera species by detecting and mapping rDNA sites. Interspecific variability in the number of sites was detected, but not in correlation with the ploidy level. A chromosome pair with a strong hybridization signal was always visible and this signal corresponded to the secondary constriction detectable by conventional techniques. Genomic in situ hybridization experiments combined with information on meiotic pairing in species and interspecific hybrids revealed that homologies detected by molecular analysis are greater than those detected by chromosome pairing. This suggests that the formation of the allopolyploids could involve species more closely related than previously assumed. Despite the molecular affinity among the genomes, the meiotic pairing is probably controlled by specific genes that restrict homeologous pairing in polyploids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".