Karyotype analysis of<i>Lilium longiflorum</i>and<i>Lilium rubellum</i>by chromosome banding and fluorescence in situ hybridisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed karyotypes of Lilium longiflorum and L. rubellum were constructed on the basis of chromosome arm lengths, C-banding, AgNO 3 staining, and PI-DAPI banding, together with fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) with the 5S and 45S rDNA sequences as probes. The C-banding patterns that were obtained with the standard BSG technique revealed only few minor bands on heterologous positions of the L. longiflorum and L. rubellum chromosomes. FISH of the 5S and 45S rDNA probes on L. longiflorum metaphase complements showed overlapping signals at proximal positions of the short arms of chromosomes 4 and 7, a single 5S rDNA signal on the secondary constriction of chromosome 3, and one 45S rDNA signal adjacent to the 5S rDNA signal on the subdistal part of the long arm of chromosome 3. In L. rubellum, we observed co-localisation of the 5S and 45S rDNA sequences on the short arm of chromosomes 2 and 4 and on the long arms of chromosomes 2 and 3, and two adjacent bands on chromosome 12. Silver staining (Ag-NOR) of the nucleoli and NORs in L. longiflorum and L. rubellum yielded a highly variable number of signals in interphase nuclei and only a few faint silver deposits on the NORs of mitotic metaphase chromosomes. In preparations stained with PI and DAPI, we observed both red- and blue-fluorescing bands at different positions on the L. longiflorum and L. rubellum chromosomes. The red-fluorescing or so-called reverse PI-DAPI bands always coincided with rDNA sites, whereas the blue-fluorescing DAPI bands corresponded to C-bands. Based on these techniques, we could identify most of chromosomes of the L. longiflorum and L. rubellum karyotypes.Key words: fluorescence in situ hybridisation, FISH, 5S rDNA, 45S rDNA, C-banding, reverse PI-DAPI banding.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".