An assessment of chromosomal rearrangements in neopolyploids of<i>Lilium</i>hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of newly induced polyploids (neopolyploids) of Lilium hybrids were monitored for the occurrence of chromosomal rearrangements through genomic in situ hybridization (GISH) technique. One of the populations was obtained through crossing an allotriploid Longiflorum x Oriental hybrid (LLO) with an allotetraploid Longiflorum x Trumpet hybrid (LLTT), both of which were derived from somatic chromosome doubling. The other type of allopolyploid population was derived from meiotic chromosome doubling in which numerically unreduced (2n) gametes from two different interspecific hybrids, namely, Longiflorum x Asiatic (LA) and Oriental x Asiatic (OA), were used to get backcross progeny with the Asiatic parents. GISH clearly discriminated the three constituent genomes (L, T, and O) in the complements of the progeny obtained from mitotic chromosome doubling. A total of 26 individuals were analyzed from this population and there was no evidence of chromosomal rearrangements. However, in the case of meiotically doubled allopolyploid progeny, considerable frequencies of chromosomal rearrangements were observed through GISH. The so-called chromosomal rearrangements in meiotic polyploids are the result of homoeologous recombination rather than translocations. Furthermore, evidence for the occurrence of meiotic recombination in the LA hybrids has been confirmed with GISH on meiotic chromosomes. Thus, there was evidence that neopolyploids of Lilium hybrids did not possess any noticeable chromosome rearrangements.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".