MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006783952 · doi:10.1139/g03-003

Moth sex chromatin probed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)

2003· article· en· W2006783952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ken Sahara, Ulrike Eickhoff, Walther Traut

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAkademie Věd České RepublikyAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsBiologyBombyx morigenomic DNAChromosomeChromatinGeneticsDNAPolyploidInterphaseFluorescence in situ hybridizationGalleria mellonellaComparative genomic hybridizationExtrachromosomal DNAHeterochromatinPolytene chromosomePloidyMolecular biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) with a probe mixture of differently labeled genomic DNA from females and males highlighted the W chromosomes in mitotic plates and the W chromatin in polyploid interphase nuclei of the silkworm Bombyx mori, the flour moth Ephestia kuehniella, and the wax moth Galleria mellonella. The overproportionate fluorescence signal indicated an accumulation of repetitive sequences in the respective W chromosomes. Measurements of the fluorescence signals revealed two components, one that is present also in male DNA (non-W chromosomes) and another one that is present only in or preponderantly in female DNA (W chromosomes). While the W chromosomes of E. kuehniella and G. mellonella had both components, that of B. mori appeared to lack the latter component. Our results show that CGH can be applied to obtain a first estimate of the sequence composition of sex chromosomes in species from which otherwise little is known on the molecular level.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207