Fluorescent in situ hybridization with arbitrarily amplified DNA fragments differentiates carrot (<i>Daucus carota</i>L.) chromosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carrot (Daucus carota L.) chromosomes are small and poorly differentiated in size and morphology. Here we demonstrate that fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) signals derived from arbitrary PCR probes can be used for chromosome identification in carrot. To prepare probes, we searched for nonpolymorphic products abundantly amplified with arbitrary decamer primers in a group of accessions representing carrot genetic diversity. As a result, 13 fragments ranging in size from 517 to 1758 bp were selected, sequenced, and used as probes for fluorescent in situ hybridization. Four of these probes produced clear and reproducible hybridization signals. The sequences showed similarity to a number of carrot BAC-end sequences, indicating their repetitive character. Three of them were similar to internal portions of gypsy and copia LTR retrotransposons previously identified in plants. Hybridization signals for the four probes were observed as dotted tracks on chromosomes, differing in distribution and intensity. Generally, they were present in pericentromeric and (or) interstitial localizations on chromosome arms. The use of the four probes allowed discrimination of chromosome pairs and construction of more detailed karyotypes and idiograms of carrot.
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) | 0.002 | 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".