A Target Capture-Based Method to Estimate Ploidy From Herbarium Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome duplication (WGD) events are common in many plant lineages, but the ploidy status and possible occurrence of intraspecific ploidy variation is unknown for most species. Standard methods for ploidy determination are chromosome counting and flow cytometry approaches. While flow cytometry approaches typically use fresh tissue, an increasing number of studies have shown that recently dried specimens can be used to yield ploidy data. Recent studies have started to explore whether high-throughput sequencing (HTS) data can be used to assess ploidy levels by analysing allelic frequencies from single copy nuclear genes. Here we compare different approaches using a range of yam (Dioscorea) tissues of varying ages, drying methods and quality, including herbarium tissue. Our aims were to: (1) explore the limits of flow cytometry in estimating ploidy level from dried samples, including herbarium vouchers collected between 1831–2011, and (2) optimize a HTS-based method to estimate ploidy by considering allelic frequencies from nuclear genes obtained using a target-capture method. We show that, although flow cytometry can be used to estimate ploidy levels from herbarium specimens collected up to fifteen years ago, success rate is low (5.9 %). We validated our HTS-based estimates of ploidy using 260 genes by benchmarking with dried samples of species of known ploidy (D. alata, D. communis and D. sylvatica). Subsequently, we successfully applied the method to the 85 herbarium samples analysed with flow cytometry, and successfully provided results for 91.7% of them, comprising species across the phylogenetic tree of Dioscorea. We also explored the limits of using this HTS-based approach for identifying high ploidy levels in herbarium material and the effects of heterozygosity and sequence coverage. Overall, we demonstrated that ploidy diversity within and between species may be ascertained from historical collections, allowing the determination of polyploidization events from samples collected up to two centuries ago. This approach has the potential to provide insights into the drivers and dynamics of ploidy level changes during plant evolution and crop domestication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".