Evidence for hexasomic inheritance in <i>Chrysanthemum morifolium</i> Ramat. based on analysis of EST-SSR markers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.) are ornamental flowers, which are famous worldwide. The mode of inheritance has great implications for the genetic analysis of polyploid species. However, genetic analysis of chrysanthemum has been hampered because of its controversial inheritance mode (disomic or hexasomic). To classify the inheritance mode of chrysanthemums, an analysis of three approaches was carried out in an F1 progeny of 192 offspring using 223 expressed sequence tag-simple sequence repeat (EST-SSR) markers. The analysis included segregation analysis, the ratio of simplex marker alleles linked in coupling to repulsion, as well as the transmission and segregation patterns of EST-SSR marker alleles. After segregation analysis, 204 marker alleles fit hexasomic inheritance and 150 marker alleles fit disomic inheritance, showing that marker alleles were inherited predominantly in a hexasomic manner. Furthermore, the results of the analysis of allele configuration and segregation behavior of five EST-SSR markers also suggested random pairing of chromosomes. Additionally, the ratio of simplex marker alleles linked in coupling to repulsion was 1:0, further supporting hexasomic inheritance. Therefore, it could be inferred that chrysanthemum is a complete or near-complete hexasome.
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) | 0.002 | 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".