Synthesis and cytological characterization of trigeneric hybrids of durum wheat with and without<i>Ph1</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild grasses in the tribe Triticeae, some in the primary or secondary gene pool of wheat, are excellent reservoirs of genes for superior agronomic traits, including resistance to various diseases. Thus, the diploid wheatgrasses Thinopyrum bessarabicum (Savul. and Rayss) A. Love (2n = 2x = 14; JJ genome) and Lophopyrum elongatum (Host) A. Love (2n = 2x = 14; EE genome) are important sources of genes for disease resistance, e.g., Fusarium head blight resistance that may be transferred to wheat. By crossing fertile amphidiploids (2n = 4x = 28; JJEE) developed from F1 hybrids of the 2 diploid species with appropriate genetic stocks of durum wheat, we synthesized trigeneric hybrids (2n = 4x = 28; ABJE) incorporating both the J and E genomes of the grass species with the durum genomes A and B. Trigeneric hybrids with and without the homoeologous-pairing suppressor gene, Ph1, were produced. In the absence of Ph1, the chances of genetic recombination between chromosomes of the 2 useful grass genomes (JE) and those of the durum genomes (AB) would be enhanced. Meiotic chromosome pairing was studied using both conventional staining and fluorescent genomic in situ hybridization (fl-GISH). As expected, the Ph1-intergeneric hybrids showed low chromosome pairing (23.86% of the complement), whereas the trigenerics with ph1b (49.49%) and those with their chromosome 5B replaced by 5D (49.09%) showed much higher pairing. The absence of Ph1 allowed pairing and, hence, genetic recombination between homoeologous chromosomes. Fl-GISH analysis afforded an excellent tool for studying the specificity of chromosome pairing: wheat with grass, wheat with wheat, or grass with grass. In the trigeneric hybrids that lacked chromosome 5B, and hence lacked the Ph1 gene, the wheat-grass pairing was elevated, i.e., 2.6 chiasmata per cell, a welcome feature from the breeding standpoint. Using Langdon 5D(5B) disomic substitution for making trigeneric hybrids should promote homoeologous pairing between durum and grass chromosomes and hence accelerate alien gene transfer into the durum genomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".