MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Endosperm formation in aposporous <i>Crataegus</i> (Rosaceae, Spiraeoideae, tribe Pyreae): parallels to Ranunculaceae and Poaceae

2006· article· en· W2134859087 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Talent, Timothy A. Dickinson

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEndospermApomixisBiologyBotanyPloidyCrataegusPoaceaeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apomixis in Crataegus is primarily aposporous and requires pollination. The embryo sac is of the Polygonum type. A combination of meiotically unreduced embryo sacs with apparently reduced pollen would violate the usual requirement for a 2 : 1 ratio of maternal to paternal contributions to the endosperm. We therefore investigated the origin of endosperm in seeds of sexual diploids and apomictic polyploids of the sister genera Crataegus and Mespilus. Flow-cytometric DNA measurements from embryo and endosperm in mature seeds were converted to ploidy levels using leaf-tissue information. The diploids had triploid endosperm. In c. 60% of seed from polyploids, one sperm apparently contributes to the endosperm, while 25% or more may involve two sperm. Additional results suggest that trinucleate central cells also occur. Fertilization of meiotically unreduced eggs is indicated. The ratio of maternal to paternal contributions to the endosperm in these apomictic Crataegus is not constrained to 2 : 1. They thus resemble some Sorbus (Pyreae) and very distantly related Ranunculus (Ranunculaceae). It is suggested that Paspalum (Poaceae) may have similarly flexible endosperm ploidy levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations79
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207