MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031018312 · doi:10.1139/g04-093

FISH-aimed karyotyping and characterization of Renner complexes in permanent heterozygote<i>Rhoeo spathacea</i>

2005· article· en· W2031018312 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hieronim Golczyk, Robert Hasterok, Andrzej Joachimiak

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach
KeywordsBiologyKaryotypeFish <Actinopterygii>Heterozygote advantageGeneticsGeneFisheryGenotypeChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using 25S rDNA, 5S rDNA, and telomere sequences as probes was carried out in the complex permanent heterozygote Rhoeo spathacea. Telomere sites were exclusively terminal. All 10 25S rDNA loci were located distally and appeared transcriptionally active after silver staining. Six distal and 2 interstitial 5S rDNA sites were detected; 2 of the distal sites strictly colocalized with 25S rDNA loci. The 2 intercalary 5S rDNA loci occurred in short arms of 2 chromosomes that conjoined at meiosis. Chromosomes differed as to the amount of AT-rich centric heterochromatin, suggesting involvement of pericentromeric regions in translocations. The possibility of Robertsonian-like rearrangements was discussed. Double target FISH with ribosomal probes along with DAPI fluorescence gave the basis for full chromosome identification in mitosis. The 2 Renner complexes are structurally balanced, both having 5 25S and 4 5S rDNA sites. Centromere clustering, telomere association, a high number of NOR sites, and a strong tendency for formation of joint nucleoli contribute to the preservation of highly polarized Rabl arrangement at interphase. These findings were discussed in relation to meiotic catenation in Rhoeo.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207