MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946160680 · doi:10.1002/cyto.a.22696

Distinguishing 2N gamete nuclei from doublets in pollen using flow cytometry and pulse analysis

2015· article· en· W1946160680 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Kron, Brian C. Husband

Bibliographic record

VenueCytometry Part A · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGametePollenFlow cytometryCytometryPulse (music)BiophysicsBiologyPhysicsBotanyMolecular biologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The value of flow cytometry for quantifying unreduced (2N) pollen production in plants is well recognized; however, the approach has been limited by technical obstacles to obtaining high quality nuclei fluorescence histograms and the difficulty in distinguishing 2N nuclei from 1N doublets. Here, we use mathematical arguments and observations of fluorescence properties of angiosperm pollen nuclei to generate guidelines for applying pulse analysis to correct for doublets in pollen nuclei data. We show that the theoretical requirements for applying pulse analysis for doublet correction are met when nucleus fluorescence height and/or width measures in the unreduced gamete (2C DNA content) region exhibit bimodality (reflecting singlets and doublets) in combination with unimodal distributions of the same parameters in the reduced gamete (1C) region. These conditions are regularly met in the family Brassicaceae but not in the Asteraceae and Poaceae. We further show that when these requirements are met, pulse analysis estimates of doublet proportions are well correlated with estimates obtained with microscopy. We propose guidelines for doublet correction when estimating frequencies of unreduced male gametes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytometry Part ASame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207