Chromosomal instability in the cattle clones derived by somatic cell nuclear-transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytogenetic analysis was performed on peripheral lymphocytes collected from 20 cattle clones (19 showed no overt phenotypic abnormalities except for high birth weight while 1 exhibited left forelimb contracture), the donor cell cultures from which they were derived and lymphocytes from six insemination produced control cattle. All animals and cell cultures had a modal chromosome number of 60. The frequency of abnormal cells for donor cell cultures, clones, and controls was 6.68+/-0.30%, 5.30+/-5.49%, and 5.08+/-1.04%, respectively, and did not differ significantly among the groups. There were, however, two clones derived from different donor cell cultures with high incidences of 21.29% and 20.13%, of abnormal cells consisting of pseudodiploid (near-diploid), near-triploid and near-tetraploid, and tetraploid cells. Among these two clones, one had only a few endoreduplicated nuclei although further studies are necessary to precisely define the cytological origin and nature of the abnormal cells. The clones were evaluated at multiple time points for up to 20 months of age and the incidence of abnormal lymphocytes remained stable indicating that the chromosomally abnormal nuclei found in cloned animals was not a transient event. These results show that the majority of phenotypically normal clones have normal chromosomal make up but that instability of chromosome number can occur in clones that are phenotypically normal. Therefore, cytogenetical evaluation of peripheral lymphocytes and other tissues with follow up of the phenotypical consequences of these abnormalities is warranted even in phenotypically normal clones.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".