Chromatin organization during spermiogenesis in <i>Octopus vulgaris</i>. II: DNA‐interacting proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".