MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059838898 · doi:10.1139/g05-130

The clustering of four subfamilies of satellite DNA at individual chromosome ends in<i>Silene latifolia</i>

2006· article· en· W2059838898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yusuke Kazama, Ryuji Sugiyama, Yumiko Suto, Wakana Uchida, Shigeyuki Kawano

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySubfamilyGeneticsChromosomeGenomeSatellite DNAPhylogenetic treeTandem repeatGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The satellite DNA (satDNA) on the ends of chromosomes has been isolated and characterized in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. BAC clones containing large numbers of repeat units of satDNA in a tandem array were isolated to examine the clustering of the repeat units. satDNA repeat units were purified from each isolated BAC clone and sequenced. To investigate pairwise similarities among the repeat units, a phylogenetic tree was constructed using the neighbor-joining algorithm. The repeat units derived from 7 BAC clones were grouped into SacI, KpnI, #11F02, and #16E07 subfamilies. The SacI and KpnI subfamilies have been reported previously. Multicolored fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using SacI or KpnI subfamily probes resulted in different signal intensities and locations at the chromosomal ends, indicating that each chromosomal end has a unique composition of subfamilies of satDNA. For example, the p arm of the X chromosome exhibited signal composition similar to that on the pseudo autosomal region (PAR) of the Y chromosome, but not to that on the q arm of the X chromosome. The satDNA has not been completely homogenized in the S. latifolia genome. Each subfamily is available for a probe of FISH karyotyping.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207