Chromosome painting reveals the genomic structure of three polyploid species of <i>Ipomoea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultivated sweetpotato [ Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] from the family Convolvulaceae is a hexaploid species with 2 n = 6 x = 90 and has been controversial regarding its nature as an autopolyploid arising within a species or an allopolyploid forming between species. Here, we developed oligonucleotide-based painting probes for two chromosomes of I. nil, a model diploid Ipomoea species. Using these probes, we revealed the pairing behavior of homoeologous chromosomes in I. batatas and its two possible polyploid ancestral species, tetraploid I. tabascana (2 n = 4 x = 60) and hexaploid I. trifida (2 n = 6 x = 90). Chromosome painting analysis revealed a high percentage of quadrivalent formation in zygotene–pachytene cells of I. tabascana, which supported that I. tabascana was an autotetraploid likely derived by doubling of structurally similar and homologous genomes rather than a hybrid between I. batatas and I. trifida (2 x). A high frequency of hexavalent/bivalent and tetravalent pairing was observed in I. trifida (6 x) and I. batatas. However, the percentage of hexavalent pairing in I. trifida (6 x) was far higher than that in I. batatas. Thus, the present results tend to support that I. trifida (6 x) is an autohexaploid, while I. batatas is more likely to be a segmental allohexaploid.
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".