Plant chromosome homology: hypotheses relating rendezvous, recognition and reciprocal exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many higher eukaryotes have dispersed repetitive DNA and multiple instances of segmental duplications. As well, many plants and lower animals are polyploids. Thus restricting reciprocal genetic exchange to truly homologous chromosomes is likely a multi-step process. We propose the following sequence of events. First the ability to form a synaptonemal complex (SC) prematurely (i.e. before homology checking/recognition) is precluded by the organization of chromosomes during premeiotic S phase. Next rough alignment is accomplished regionally by having key allelic transcription units brought to the same transcription center. Once rough alignment is accomplished, close alignment can occur in conjunction with homology checking/recognition. Successful homology checking produces changes that now permit SC formation within the region of the check. Some organisms (with challenges to true homology such as dispersed repetitive DNA and segmental duplications) may require that, for a region to be competent to form an SC, successful homology checks must occur at both ends of the region. Successful early SC formation may provide an environment in which recombination intermediates can be earmarked for resolution into crossovers. Later in prophase I SC formation can occur nonhomologously, if two unsynapsed chromosomal axes meet.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".