MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996757266 · doi:10.1159/000118745

Meiotic recombination in normal and clone bulls and their offspring

2008· article· en· W1996757266 on OpenAlexaff
E.J. Hart, Alain Pinton, Anne M. Powell, R. Wall, W.A. King

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMeiosisSomatic cell nuclear transferGenetic recombinationHomologous recombinationGeneticsHomologous chromosomeSynaptonemal complexCloning (programming)Meiosis IISexual reproductionChromosomeRecombinationGeneBlastocystEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homologous chromosome pairing and recombination are essential components of meiosis and sexual reproduction. The reshuffling of genetic material through breakage and reunion of chromatids ensure proper segregation of homologous chromosomes in reduction division and genetic diversity in the progeny. The advent of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) as a reproductive biotechnology for use in livestock industry has made it easy to bypass these vital steps. However, few studies have been carried out on the impact of SCNT on the reproductive characteristics of cloned animals and, none to date, on the meiotic processes in animals, which were created by circumventing meiosis. In an attempt to assess the impact of cloning by SCNT on the meiotic processes, we undertook an immunocytological comparison of recombination in normal and clone bulls using antibodies raised against the synaptonemal complex protein 3 (SCP3) to label the lateral elements and the mismatch repair protein 1 (MLH1) foci on bivalents as indicators of recombination events. Our studies involving five normal bulls of proven fertility, two SCNT-derived bulls, and four mature offspring of SCNT bulls showed that the mean number of crossing over per spermatocyte for normal bulls (42 +/- 4 SD; ranging from 33 to 56), was not significantly different from that of SCNT-derived bulls (43 +/- 5 SD; ranging from 35 to 56), and the offspring of SCNT-derived bulls (43 +/- 5 SD; ranging from 37 to 58). It would appear that circumventing meiosis to produce these animals does not influence the meiotic processes revealed by MLH1 foci detected in spermatocytes.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207