Chromosomal characterization in native populations of <i>Elymus scabrifolius</i> from Argentina through classical and molecular cytogenetics (FISH–GISH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The karyotype of Elymus scabrifolius (Döll) J.H. Hunz. (2n = 4x = 28) was investigated by DAPI staining and in situ hybridization. All the accessions studied presented a symmetric and uniform karyotype constituted by 9m+2m-sm+3sm. DAPI stain showed 1-7 conspicuous bands in all the chromosomes and polymorphisms between accessions. FISH experiments carried out with 45S rDNA as probe (pTa71) showed strong hybridization signals on the metacentric SAT-chromosome pair 8; the submetacentric SAT-chromosome pair 13 presented weaker hybridization. FISH using pSc119.2 clone as probe identified five chromosome pairs. Then, the combination of chromosome morphology, DAPI-staining, and FISH enabled the accurate identification of each chromosome pair in E. scabrifolius. Genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) experiments using Hordeum DNA as probe on mitotic metaphases confirmed unequivocally the presence of the H genome in E. scabrifolius, allowing us to observe six uniformly labeled chromosome pairs and two chromosome pairs with only one arm labeled. The remaining six chromosome pairs were weakly labeled. The rehybridization of FISH slides with Hordeum DNA as probe allow us to assign the genomic provenance of most of the chromosomes in the studied accessions. Moreover, intergenomic rearrangement was detected between genome H and the still unknown progenitor genome.
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".