MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984112897 · doi:10.1103/physreve.91.012711

Weak correlation of starch and volume in synchronized photosynthetic cells

2015· article· en· W1984112897 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Rading, Michael Sandmann, Martin Steup, Davide Chiarugi, Angelo Valleriani

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsChlamydomonas reinhardtiiCell divisionStarchCellPhotosynthesisPopulationCell cycleBiologyVolume (thermodynamics)BiophysicsAlgaeCell sizeCell growthCell biologyDivision (mathematics)BotanyBiological systemMutantBiochemistryPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cultures of unicellular algae, features of single cells, such as cellular volume and starch content, are thought to be the result of carefully balanced growth and division processes. Single-cell analyses of synchronized photoautotrophic cultures of the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii reveal, however, that the cellular volume and starch content are only weakly correlated. Likewise, other cell parameters, e.g., the chlorophyll content per cell, are only weakly correlated with cell size. We derive the cell size distributions at the beginning of each synchronization cycle considering growth, timing of cell division and daughter cell release, and the uneven division of cell volume. Furthermore, we investigate the link between cell volume growth and starch accumulation. This work presents evidence that, under the experimental conditions of light-dark synchronized cultures, the weak correlation between both cell features is a result of a cumulative process rather than due to asymmetric partition of biomolecules during cell division. This cumulative process necessarily limits cellular similarities within a synchronized cell population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207