MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990516972 · doi:10.1093/molehr/gah193

Temporal progression of recombination in human males

2005· article· en· W1990516972 on OpenAlexaff
M. Oliver‐Bonet, P.J. Turek, Fei Sun, Edmund Ko, Renée H. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Human Reproduction · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynapsisSynaptonemal complexRAD51BiologyHomologous recombinationMeiosisHomologous chromosomeGeneticsMLH1DNA repairDNA mismatch repairDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, immunocytology has been used in humans to detect a limited number of meiotic proteins: components of the synaptonemal complex (SCP1 and SCP3) and some proteins known to participate in recombination events, such as MLH1 or RAD51. However, the colocalization or coexistence of proteins known to participate during the different stages of human meiosis remains largely unstudied, and these studies could provide important clues about the mechanics of recombination. This work reports the relative timing and localization of five different meiotic proteins that have previously been implicated in human homologous recombination [RAD51, replication protein A (RPA), MSH4, MLH1 and MLH3]. MSH4 foci appear concurrently with synapsis initiation at zygotene, shortly after the first RAD51 foci are detected. The presence of RPA in MSH4 foci was noted, suggesting that these two proteins may act co-operatively. Both RPA and MSH4 foci reach maximal numbers at the end of zygotene, when synapsis is concluding. From this point, RPA foci all but disappear by the end of pachytene, whereas MSH4 foci decline to a stable number at mid-pachytene, where they localize with MLH1/MLH3 recombination sites. We discuss a possible role for MSH4 in synapsis initiation and/or maintenance.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations42
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Human ReproductionSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207