MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030297821 · doi:10.1159/000118748

Extensive nonhomologous meiotic synapsis between normal chromosome axes of an rcp(3;6)(p14;q21) translocation in a hairless Mexican boar

2008· article· en· W2030297821 on OpenAlexaff
D.A.F. Villagómez, Miguel Ángel Ayala Valdovinos, Jorge Galindo-García, David Sánchez-Chiprés, J. Mora-Galindo, J.J. Taylor-Preciado

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynapsisBiologySynaptonemal complexChromosomal translocationMeiosisHomologous chromosomeGeneticsPairingHairlessChromosomePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its low fertility, expressed as small litter size, a Mexican hairless boar was subjected to cytogenetic investigation. Analysis of G-banded mitotic chromosomes revealed a reciprocal chromosome translocation, rcp(3;6) (p14;q21). Synaptonemal complex analysis showed a regular pairing behavior of the translocation chromosome axes, always resulting in a quadrivalent configuration. However, due to extensive nonhomologous pairing between the axes of nonderivative chromosomes 3 and 6, the quadrivalent mostly had an asymmetrical cross-shaped morphology. The nonhomologous pairing occurred not only at mid and late pachytene, but also at the earliest stage of pachytene. It seems that early pachytene heterosynapsis is a common phenomenon in the pairing behavior of pig reciprocal translocations. Therefore, heterosynapsis may reduce apoptosis of germ cells due to partial absence of homologous synapsis during the pairing phase of meiosis. The frequency of spermatocytes showing quadrivalent configurations with unpaired axial segments apparently did not affect germ cell progression in the boar, since fairly normal testicular histology was noticed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207