MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083585701 · doi:10.1159/000109628

Two rare aneutriploids in the unisexual <i>Ambystoma</i> (Amphibia, Caudata) identified by GISH indicating two different types of meiotic errors

2007· article· en· W2083585701 on OpenAlexaff
Keying Bi, James P. Bogart, Jinzhong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNondisjunctionMeiosisKaryotypeCaudataGeneticsChromosomeHybridZoologyChiasmaEvolutionary biologyAneuploidyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report two types of aneutriploids in unisexual salamanders Ambystomalaterale-2jeffersonianum (LJJ) and Ambystoma 2 laterale-jeffersonianum (LLJ). One karyotype has 3n = 42: L27 (L8-); J15 (J8p+), and we suggest that it was induced by homoeologous pairing after premeiotic endomitosis followed by an unequal L8;J8 segregation. The second karyotype has 3n = 43: L14 (L10q); J29 (J12+), which can be explained by meiotic nondisjunction followed by unbalanced segregation. These two rare aneutriploids demonstrate two different types of meiotic errors that might help to explain the high mortality observed in this complex. Case one also indicates that contemporary intergenomic exchanges and homoeologous recombinations may occur after a premeiotic chromosome doubling event. Our study provides additional evidence for the extremely flexible reproduction of unisexual Ambystoma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207