Construction of chromosomal recombination maps of three genomes of lilies (<i>Lilium</i>) based on GISH analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomal recombination maps were constructed for three genomes of lily (Lilium) using GISH analyses. For this purpose, the backcross (BC) progenies of two diploid (2n = 2x = 24) interspecific hybrids of lily, viz. Longiflorum x Asiatic (LA) and Oriental x Asiatic (OA), were used. Mostly the BC progenies of LA hybrids consisted of both triploid (2n = 3x = 36) and diploid (2n = 2x = 24) with some aneuploid genotypes and those of OA hybrids consisted of triploid (2n = 3x = 36) and some aneuploid genotypes. In all cases, it was possible to identify the homoeologous recombinant chromosomes as well as accurately count the number of crossover points, which are called "recombination sites". Recombination sites were estimated in the BC progeny of 71 LA and 41 OA genotypes. In the case of BC progenies of LA hybrids, 248 recombination sites were cytologically localized on 12 different chromosomes of each genome (i.e., L and A). Similarly, 116 recombinant sites were localized on the 12 chromosomes each from the BC progenies of OA hybrids (O and A genomes). Cytological maps were constructed on the basis of the percentages of distances (micrometres) of the recombination sites from the centromeres. Since an Asiatic parent was involved in both hybrids, viz. LA and OA, two maps were constructed for the A genome that were indicated as Asiatic (L) and Asiatic (O). The other two maps were Longiflorum (A) and Oriental (A). Remarkably, the recombination sites were highly unevenly distributed among the different chromosomes of all four maps. Because the recombination sites can be unequivocally identified through GISH, they serve as reliable landmarks and pave the way for assigning molecular markers or desirable genes to chromosomes of Lilium and also monitor introgression of alien segments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".