Physical organization of repetitive sequences and chromosome diversity of barley revealed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using oligonucleotides is a simple and convenient method for chromosome research. In this study, 34 of 46 previously developed oligonucleotides produced signals in barley. Together with two plasmid clones and one PCR-amplified cereal centromere repeat (CCS1) probe, 37 repetitive sequences were chromosomally located produced three types of signals covering different positions on the chromosomes. The centromeric and pericentric regions had a more complex genomic organization and sequence composition probably indicative of higher contents of heterochromatin. An efficient multi-plex probe containing eight oligonucleotides and a plasmid clone of 45S rDNA was developed. Thirty-three barley karyotypes were developed and compared. Among them, 11 irradiation-induced mutants of cultivar 08-49 showed no chromosomal variation, whereas 22 cultivar and landrace accessions contained 28 chromosomal polymorphisms. Chromosome 4H was the most variable and 6H was the least variable based on chromosome polymorphic information content (CPIC). Five polymorphic chromosomes (1H-2, 2H-1, 3H-3, 5H-2, and 6H-2) were dominant types, each occurring in more than 50% of accessions. The multi-plex probe should facilitate identification of further chromosomal polymorphisms in barley.
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".