MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992837945 · doi:10.4161/cc.7.6.5562

The meiotic differentiation program uncouples S-phase from cell size control in<i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>

2008· article· en· W1992837945 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeMeiosisCell cycleCell biologyGametogenesisPloidyCell divisionYeastCellCell growthCell sizeGeneticsGeneEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell size homeostasis in proliferating cell populations is maintained in part by linking the initiation of a cell division cycle to growth such that a specific "size threshold" must be achieved prior to cell cycle initiation. In Saccharomyces cerevisiae the size threshold is responsive to environmental conditions and cell cycle entry is initiated at smaller sizes in poor growth medium and larger sizes in rich medium. In response to starvation for nitrogen and glucose diploid S. cerevisiae abandon proliferation and initiate gametogenesis (sporulation). The ability of both small and large cells to sporulate was investigated and the data reported here indicate that very small S. cerevisiae cells derived from the SK1 genetic background are able to sporulate. Although larger cells progress through the process more rapidly than small cells, sporulation of very small cells appears to be normal as they undergo meiotic recombination and form viable spores. Genetic analysis indicates that this trait is determined by multiple genes and may explain why some S. cerevisiae strains appear to display a minimal size threshold for sporulation. These data support a model where cell size controls can be bypassed or profoundly altered specifically to allow cellular differentiation in response to environmental signals.

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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207