Possible genetic reproductive isolation between two tilapiine genera\nand species: Oreochromis niloticus and Sarotherodon melanotheron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful crossbreeding between Oreochromis niloticus and Sarotherodon melanotheron to produce a commercial hybrid has been difficult.The karyotypes and isoenzyme of these two species and their reciprocal hybrids (O.niloticus ♀ × S. melanotheron ♂, S. melanotheron ♀ × O. niloticus ♂, the last not included in the isoenzyme study) were investigated via metaphase chromosomes obtained from head kidney cells and electropherogram of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) isoenzymes from the liver, kidney, white muscle, heart, and eye balls.The diploid chromosome number (2n=44) and the fundamental number (NF=50) of the four tilapia genotypes were the same.However, the karyotype of O. niloticus had three pairs of sub-metacentric (sm), twelve pairs of sub-telocentric (st), and seven pairs of telocentric (t) chromosomes, while S. melanotheron had one pair of metacentric (m), two pairs of sm, 12 pairs of st, and seven pairs of t chromosomes.The reciprocal hybrids both showed a mixed karyotype range between their parents: 0.5 pair of m, 2.5 pairs of sm, 12 pairs of st, and seven pairs of t chromosomes.In view of the electropherogram of isozymes, only the LDH of the kidney showed significant clear bands, with five bands in O. niloticus, three bands in S. melanotheron, and duplicated six bands in the hybrids.The bands varied depending on their activities and mobilities.We considered that the differences in karyotype and isoenzyme were related to the genetic mechanism for post-mating isolation, and provided some additional basic genetic background of their taxonomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".