Development and characterization of <i>Triticum turgidum</i> – <i>Aegilops comosa</i> and <i>T. turgidum</i> – <i>Ae. markgrafii</i> amphidiploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aegilops comosa and Ae. markgrafii are diploid progenitors of polyploidy species of Aegilops sharing M and C genomes, respectively. Transferring valuable genes/traits from Aegilops into wheat is an alternative strategy for wheat genetic improvement. The amphidiploids between diploid species of Aegilops and tetraploid wheat can act as bridges to overcome obstacles from direct hybridization and can be developed by the union of unreduced gametes. In this study, we developed seven Triticum turgidum – Ae. comosa and two T. turgidum – Ae. markgrafii amphidiploids. The unreduced gametes mechanisms, including first-division restitution (FDR) and single-division meiosis (SDM), were observed in triploid F1 hybrids of T. turgidum – Ae. comosa (STM) and T. turgidum – Ae. markgrafii (STC). Only FDR was observed in STC hybrids, whereas FDR or both FDR and SDM were detected in the STM hybrids. All seven pairs of M chromosomes of Ae. comosa and C chromosomes of Ae. markgrafii were distinguished by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) probes pSc119.2 and pTa71 combinations with pTa-535 and (CTT)12/(ACT)7, respectively. Meanwhile, the chromosomes of tetraploid wheat and diploid Aegilops parents were distinguished by the same FISH probes. The amphidiploids possessed specific valuable traits such as multiple tillers, large seed size related traits, and stripe rust resistance that could be utilized in the genetic improvement of wheat.
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 | 0.000 | 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".