Ribosomal DNA, heterochromatin, and correlation with genome size in diploid and polyploid North American endemic sagebrushes (<i>Artemisia,</i>Asteraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subgenus Tridentatae (Artemisia, Asteraceae) can be considered a polyploid complex. Both polyploidy and hybridization have been documented in the Tridentatae. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and fluorochrome banding were used to detect and analyze ribosomal DNA changes linked to polyploidization in this group by studying four diploid-polyploid species pairs. In addition, genome sizes and heterochromatin patterns were compared between these populations. The linked 5S and 35S rRNA genes are confirmed as characteristic for Artemisia, and a pattern at the diploid level of three rDNA loci located at telomeric positions proved to be typical. Loss of rDNA loci was observed in some polyploids, whereas others showed additivity with respect to their diploid relatives. Genome downsizing was observed in all polyploids. Banding patterns differed depending on the pair of species analysed, but some polyploid populations showed an increased number of heterochromatic bands. FISH and fluorochrome banding were useful in determining the systematic position of Artemisia bigelovii, for which a differential pattern was found as compared with the rest of the group. Additionally, FISH was used to detect the presence of the Arabidopsis-type telomere repeat for the first time in Artemisia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".