MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009711258 · doi:10.1002/mrd.20068

Chromatin organization during spermiogenesis in <i>Octopus vulgaris</i>. II: DNA‐interacting proteins

2004· article· en· W2009711258 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Reproduction and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtamineBiologyChromatinSpermiogenesisArginineBiochemistrySpermDNAAmino acidCell biologyMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we study the proteins responsible for chromatin condensation during spermiogenesis in the cephalopod Octopus vulgaris. The DNA of ripe sperm nuclei in this species is condensed by a set of five different proteins. Four of these proteins are protamines. The main protamine (Po2), a protein of 44 amino acid residues, is extraordinarily simple (composed of only three different amino acid types: arginine (R), serine (S), and glycine (G). It is a basic molecule consisting of 79.5 mol% arginine residues. The rest of the protamines (Po3, Po4, Po5) are smaller molecules (33, 28, and 30 amino acid residues, respectively) that are homologous among themselves and probably with the main Po2 protamine. The ripe sperm nucleus of O. vulgaris also contains a small quantity of a molecule (Po1) that is similar to Po2 protamine. This protein could represent a Po2 protamine-precursor in a very advanced step of its processing. We discuss the characteristics of these proteins, as well as the relation between the complexity of chromatin condensation and the transitions of nuclear proteins during spermiogenesis in O. vulgaris.

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.

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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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