MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026475076 · doi:10.1139/z04-040

Germ-line versus somatic cells. I. Stereological study of differentiating embryonic tissues of <i>Tetrodontophora bielanensis</i> (Hexapoda, Collembola)

2004· article· en· W2026475076 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Piotr Świątek, Maria Vogelgesang, Marek Romek, Jerzy Klag

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicTardigrade Biology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySomatic cellCytoplasmSomaCell biologyEmbryonic stem cellMitochondrionGermHexapodaUltrastructureGerm line developmentAnatomyZoologyGeneticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined five different somatic tissues and compared them with germ-line cells to verify the "disposable soma" theory. Two embryonic stages and second-stage juveniles of Tetrodontophora bielanensis Waga, 1842 (Hexapoda, Collembola) were studied. Our results show that changes in relative volume of mitochondria during differentiation of cells correlate well with transformations of cell morphology. During morphological transformation of differentiating somatic cells, the relative volume of mitochondria in their cytoplasm is high, whereas in the differentiated tissues, this parameter is much lower. Surprisingly, the highest value of relative volume density of mitochondria is found in the cytoplasm of germ-line cells. If we accept that this parameter indicates the cell metabolism rate, then our results should be taken as supporting the "disposable soma" theory. It is also conceivable that the higher volume of mitochondria in the germ-line cells have nothing to do with energy production but, for instance, with the production or function of nuage material (germ-cell determinant) in the germ-line cells. These two possibilities are discussed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTardigrade Biology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207