Chromosome transmission in BC4 progenies of intergeneric hybrids between Saccharum spp. and Erianthus arundinaceus (Retz.) Jeswiet
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intergeneric hybrids between Saccharum spp. and Erianthus arundinaceus and clones derived from these hybrids and backcrosses to Saccharum spp. were used to study the transmission of E . arundinaceus chromosomes by genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). True hybrid progenies were precisely identified using PCR with a primer pair, AGRP52/53. The results showed that AGRP52/53 was an E . arundinaceus -specific primer pair and could be used as molecular marker to assist breeding. EaHN92, a 364 bp E . arundinaceus -specific tandem repeat satellite DNA sequence, was cloned from the E . arundinaceus clone HN92–105 with AGRP52/53, and was localized on sub-telomeric regions of all E . arundinaceus chromosomes. YCE06–61, a BC 3 progeny, had 7 E . arundinaceus chromosomes and its progenies had approximately 1–6 E . arundinaceus chromosomes. The number of E . arundinaceus chromosomes in true hybrids appeared as Gaussian distribution in 3 cross combinations. In addition, GISH detected intergeneric chromosome translocation in a few progenies. Hence, screening clones containing approximately 1–2 E . arundinaceus chromosomes without translocation could be used for sorting and sequencing E . arundinaceus chromosomes. This study provides a method for breeders to select true hybrid progenies between Saccharum spp. and E . arundinaceus , which will accelerate this intergeneric hybridization breeding.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it