Development of E‐chromosome Specific Molecular Markers for <i>Thinopyrum elongatum</i> in a Wheat Background
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Eleven primers were synthesized according to the reverse transcriptase and long terminal repeat (LTR) conserved regions of retrotransposons BARE ‐1 from barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and RIRE ‐1 from rice ( Oryza sativa L.). Fifty‐two pairs of primer combinations based on these 11 primers were used for DNA amplification of Chinese Spring‐ Thinopyrum elongatum addition lines, substitution lines plus the two parents. It showed that 145 specific fragments of inter‐simple sequence repeat (ISSR), inter‐retrotransposon amplified polymorphism (IRAP), and retrotransposon microsatellite amplified polymorphism (REMAP) were obtained which distributed over all the seven E‐genome chromosomes of Th. elongatum . Sixty specific fragments of ISSR, IRAP, and REMAP were randomly selected for cloning and sequencing. Thirty‐four sequences were found not to be homologous with wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) sequences in GenBank, which were considered to be the specific sequences of Th. elongatum . Thirty‐four pairs of primers based on these 34 specific sequences were synthesized, and 13 chromosome‐specific markers of Th. elongatum were identified and converted into SCAR markers. The results indicated that ISSR, IRAP, and REMAP techniques can be used to develop chromosome‐specific sequence‐characterized amplified regions (SCAR) markers with good stability and repeatability. These specific SCAR markers can now be used to detect Th. elongatum chromosomes and possibly even some introgressed segments in a wheat background.
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 | 0.001 | 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".