Origin and evolution of highly polymorphic rDNA sites in <i>Alstroemeria longistaminea</i> (Alstroemeriaceae) and related species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alstroemeria (Alstroemeriaceae) displays a conserved and highly asymmetric karyotype, where most rDNA sites can be properly recognized by the size and morphology of the chromosomes. We analyzed the intraspecific variation of rDNA sites in A. longistaminea and compared with their distribution in other species (A. caryophyllaea and A. piauhyensis) and a representative of a sister genus, Bomarea edulis. All three species of Alstroemeria presented 2n = 16, and one to six B chromosomes were found in some individuals of A. longistaminea. There was a set of 12 conserved rDNA sites (four 5S and eight 35S) and up to 11 variable sites. B chromosomes were almost entirely covered by 35S signals, coupled with tiny 5S sites. Noteworthy, most rDNA sites found in A. caryophyllaea and A. piauhyensis were localized in chromosome positions similar to those in A. longistaminea, suggesting the existence of conserved hotspots for rDNA accumulation. Some of these hotspots were absent in Chilean Alstromeria as well in B. edulis. We propose that insertions of rDNA sequences on chromosomes do not occur randomly but rather on preferential sites or hotspots for insertions. The maintenance of these arrays, however, may be favored/constrained by different factors, resulting in stable or polymorphic sites.
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".