MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029723905 · doi:10.1159/000130683

The in vitro isolation and characterization of monosomic sublines derived from a Colcemid-treated Chinese hamster cell population

2008· article· en· W2029723905 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Cox, S. Birnie, Donnita Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics and Cell Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColcemidBiologyChinese hamsterChromosomeAneuploidyGeneticsPloidyPopulationMolecular biologyKaryotypeCytogeneticsCellIn vitroGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of 18 sublines deficient for one or two chromosomes was isolated in vitro from a pseudodiploid Chinese hamster cell population treated appropriately with Colcemid to obtain maximal induction of aneuploidy. Chromosomes 10 and 11 were the most frequently involved and, to a lesser extent, chromosome 9 and the partially deleted 6. Since analysis of chromosome banding patterns did not reveal any evidence of chromosome rearrangement, it was concluded that entire chromosomes were absent, and thus the sublines are presumed to be monosomic. The monosomic state was quickly lost during serial culture, and the 15th passage after isolation, the monosomic cell type accounted for less than 50% of the cell population in over half the sublines. This was due to a shift in chromosome number back to 22, apparently by reacquistion of the absent chromosome, or to the appearance of tetraploidy.

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 score0.004

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetics and Cell GeneticsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207