MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018491125 · doi:10.1139/g2012-060

Organ growth without cell division: somatic polyploidy in a moth,<i>Ephestia kuehniella</i>

2012· article· en· W2018491125 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lydia Buntrock, František Marec, S.A. Krueger, Walther Traut

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAkademie Věd České Republiky
KeywordsBiologyMalpighian tubule systemInstarCytoplasmSomatic cellCell biologyBotanyLarvaCell divisionBombyx moriAnatomyCellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organ growth depends on cell division and (or) cell growth. Here, we present a study on two organs whose growth depends entirely on cell growth, once they are formed in the embryo: Malpighian tubules and silk glands of the flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella . Between first and last larval instar, the volume of Malpighian tubule cells increases by a factor of ∼1800 and that of silk gland cells by a factor of ∼3100. We determined the number of endocyles required to reach these stages by Feulgen cytometry. Cells of Malpighian tubules were in the 2C stage in first instar larvae and reached 1024C after 9 endocycles in last instar larvae (1C = 0.45 pg DNA). Silk gland cells already reached a DNA content of 8C-16C in first instar larvae and attained up to 8192C in last instar larvae after a total of 12 endocycles. The nuclei were small and more or less spherical in first instar larvae, but they were huge, flat, and bizarrely branched in last instar larvae. We consider branching as a compensatory adaptation to improve molecular traffic between nucleus and cytoplasm in these excessively large and highly polyploid cells (i) by reducing the mean distance between nucleus and cytoplasm and (ii) by enlarging the surface-to-volume ratio of these nuclei.

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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207