Using flow cytometry to estimate pollen DNA content: improved methodology and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".