Elucidation of the origin of ‘<i>agriocrithon</i>’ based on domestication genes questions the hypothesis that Tibet is one of the centers of barley domestication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild barley forms a two-rowed spike with a brittle rachis whereas domesticated barley has two- or six-rowed spikes with a tough rachis. Like domesticated barley, 'agriocrithon' forms a six-rowed spike; however, the spike is brittle as in wild barley, which makes the origin of agriocrithon obscure. Haplotype analysis of the Six-rowed spike 1 (vrs1) and Non-brittle rachis 1 (btr1) and 2 (btr2) genes was conducted to infer the origin of agriocrithon barley. Some agriocrithon barley accessions (eu-agriocrithon) carried Btr1 and Btr2 haplotypes that are not found in any cultivars, implying that they are directly derived from wild barley through a mutation at the vrs1 locus. Other agriocrithon barley accessions (pseudo-agriocrithon) carried Btr1 or Btr2 from cultivated barley, thus implying that they originated from hybridization between six-rowed landraces carrying btr1Btr2 and Btr1btr2 genotypes followed by recombination to produce Btr1Btr2. All materials we collected from Tibet belong to pseudo-agriocrithon and thus do not support the Tibetan Plateau as being a center of barley domestication. Tracing the evolutionary history of these allelic variants revealed that eu-agriocrithon represents six-rowed barley lineages that were selected by early farmers, once in south-eastern Turkmenistan (vrs1.a1) and again in the eastern part of Uzbekistan (vrs1.a4).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".