Genome size and genome evolution in diploid Triticeae species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the intriguing issues concerning the dynamics of plant genomes is the occurrence of intraspecific variation in nuclear DNA amount. The aim of this work was to assess the ranges of intraspecific, interspecific, and intergeneric variation in nuclear DNA content of diploid species of the tribe Triticeae (Poaceae) and to examine the relation between life form or habitat and genome size. Altogether, 438 plants representing 272 lines that belong to 22 species were analyzed. Nuclear DNA content was estimated by flow cytometry. Very small intraspecific variation in DNA amount was found between lines of Triticeae diploid species collected from different habitats or between different morphs. In contrast to the constancy in nuclear DNA amount at the intraspecific level, there are significant differences in genome size between the various diploid species. Within the genus Aegilops, the 1C DNA amount ranged from 4.84 pg in A. caudata to 7.52 pg in A. sharonensis; among genera, the 1C DNA amount ranged from 4.18 pg in Heteranthelium piliferum to 9.45 pg in Secale montanum. No evidence was found for a smaller genome size in annual, self-pollinating species relative to perennial, cross-pollinating ones. Diploids that grow in the southern part of the group's distribution have larger genomes than those growing in other parts of the distribution. The contrast between the low variation at the intraspecific level and the high variation at the interspecific one suggests that changes in genome size originated in close temporal proximity to the speciation event, i.e., before, during, or immediately after it. The possible effects of sudden changes in genome size on speciation processes are discussed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".