Characterization of genome in tetraploid <b>StY</b> species of <i>Elymus</i> (Triticeae: Poaceae) using sequential FISH and GISH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomes of ten species of Elymus, either presumed or known as tetraploid StY, were characterized using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). These tetraploid species could be grouped into three categories. Type I included StY genome reported species—Roegneria pendulina, R. nutans, R. glaberrima, R. ciliaris, and Elymus nevskii, and StY genome presumed species—R. sinica, R. breviglumis, and R. dura, whose genome could be separated into two sets based on different GISH intensities. Type I genome constitution was deemed as putative StY. The St genome were mainly characterized with intense hybridization with pAs1, fewer AAG sites, and linked distribution of 5S rDNA and 18S-26S rDNA, while the Y genome with less intense hybridization with pAs1, more varied AAG sites, and isolated distribution of 5S rDNA and 18S-26S rDNA. Nevertheless, further genomic variations were detected among the different StY species. Type II included E. alashanicus, whose genome could be easily separated based on GISH pattern. FISH and GISH patterns suggested that E. alashanicus comprised a modified St genome and an unknown genome. Type III included E. longearistatus, whose genome could not be separated by GISH and was designated as StlYl. Notably, a close relationship between Sl and Yl genomes was observed.
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) | 0.001 | 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".