MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038621050 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcs167

Using flow cytometry to estimate pollen DNA content: improved methodology and applications

2012· article· en· W2038621050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPollenBiologyGenomeGenome sizeBiological systemBotanyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Flow cytometry has been used to measure nuclear DNA content in pollen, mostly to understand pollen development and detect unreduced gametes. Published data have not always met the high-quality standards required for some applications, in part due to difficulties inherent in the extraction of nuclei. Here we describe a simple and relatively novel method for extracting pollen nuclei, involving the bursting of pollen through a nylon mesh, compare it with other methods and demonstrate its broad applicability and utility. METHODS: The method was tested across 80 species, 64 genera and 33 families, and the data were evaluated using established criteria for estimating genome size and analysing cell cycle. Filter bursting was directly compared with chopping in five species, yields were compared with published values for sonicated samples, and the method was applied by comparing genome size estimates for leaf and pollen nuclei in six species. KEY RESULTS: Data quality met generally applied standards for estimating genome size in 81 % of species and the higher best practice standards for cell cycle analysis in 51 %. In 41 % of species we met the most stringent criterion of screening 10 000 pollen grains per sample. In direct comparison with two chopping techniques, our method produced better quality histograms with consistently higher nuclei yields, and yields were higher than previously published results for sonication. In three binucleate and three trinucleate species we found that pollen-based genome size estimates differed from leaf tissue estimates by 1·5 % or less when 1C pollen nuclei were used, while estimates from 2C generative nuclei differed from leaf estimates by up to 2·5 %. CONCLUSIONS: The high success rate, ease of use and wide applicability of the filter bursting method show that this method can facilitate the use of pollen for estimating genome size and dramatically improve unreduced pollen production estimation with flow cytometry.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.210 · 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