MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418526321 · doi:10.1111/pbr.12384

Genomic affinities between <i>Brassica napus</i> and <i>Raphanu</i>s <i>raphanistrum</i> as revealed by meiotic <scp>GISH</scp>

2016· article· en· W2418526321 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Satinder Singh, Gurpreet Kaur, Mehak Gupta, S. S. Banga

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Breeding · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Agricultural ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaGrains Research and Development CorporationUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionBrassicaMeiosisGeneticsGenomeBivalent (engine)HybridPollenBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An intergeneric hybrid between Brassica napus ( AC , n = 19) and Raphanus raphanistrum (Rr, n = 9) was developed using the sequential ovary–ovule culture. Morphological, molecular, cytological studies and fluorescent genomic in situ hybridization were conducted to establish the hybridity and genomic relatedness. F 1 hybrid plants were male sterile and morphologically intermediate between the two parents. Cytological analysis of the hybrid plants revealed 10 II + 8I as the predominant meiotic configuration with the mean bivalent frequency of 8.83. A maximum of 13 II were observed in 8.24% of the pollen mother cells ( PMC s). GISH studies facilitated the identification of two allopairs, confirming homoeologous pairing between A/C and Rr genomes. This may have significant implications in terms of transgene flow and possible introgression into R . raphanistrum , which is a common canola weed in Canada and Australia. The intergeneric hybrid B . napus × R . raphanistrum so produced also has the potential to be used as a bridging species for the transfer of desirable genes to amphiploid crop Brassica species carrying A/C 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant BreedingSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207