MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987923323 · doi:10.1139/g07-112

Evidence of hexaploid karyotype in shortnose sturgeon

2008· article· en· W1987923323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F. Fontana, Leonardo Congiu, Vincent A. Mudrak, Joseph M. Quattro, Theodore I. J. Smith, Kent M. Ware, Serge I. Doroshov

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyKaryotypeFluorescence in situ hybridizationChromosomeGeneticsComparative genomic hybridizationCytotaxonomyHybridization probeFish <Actinopterygii>DNAFisheryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A karyotype analysis by several staining techniques was carried out on triplicate samples of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum. The chromosome number was found to be 2n = 372 +/- 6. A representative karyotype of 374 chromosomes was composed of 178 metacentrics/submetacentrics and 196 telocentrics/acrocentrics and microchromosomes. The signals of fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) with a HindIII satellite DNA probe were visible on 14 chromosomes. The signals obtained with a PstI satellite DNA probe appeared on 12 chromosomes. The FISH with a 5S rDNA probe revealed fluorescent signals on 6 chromosomes. These last results, compared with 2 signals in species with about 120 chromosomes and 4 in species with 240, support the hypothesis that A. brevirostrum is a hexaploid species, probably of hybrid origin. Based on these results, we propose a model explaining speciation events occurring in sturgeons by hybridization, genome duplication, and diploidization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207