COLCHICINE MITOSIS, CHROMOSOME CONTRACTION, NARCOSIS AND PROTEIN CHAIN FOLDING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HE well-known discovery of the great efficiency of colchicine as T an agent to induce polyploidy in plants [literature review by KRYTHE and WELLENSIEK ( 1942)] brought about a strongly increased interest in the effect of chemicals on mitosis.The morphological picture induced in the tissues by colchicine consists in a strong increase in the frequency of mitoses.These mitoses resemble most closely the metaphase of the normal division, but the spindle is absent and the chromosomes are scattered at random over the oell.The view advanced by DUSTIN and others that the increased frequency of mitoses was due to the cells being stimulated to mitosis has been shown to be false [BRUES (1936), CLEARKIN (1937), GAVAUDAN and GAVAUDAN (1938), MANGENOT (1939MANGENOT ( , 1942)), BUREAU and VILTER (1939 a and b)].The high frequency of mitoses is caused by an arrest of the mitoses at metaphase because of the absence of the mitotic spindle.It s e e m now quite evident that the essential effect of colchicine is a destruction of the spindle.The morphological picture of the colchicine mitosis [c-mitosis; LEVAN (1938)] has been described by many authors; it may be suPficient hmere to refer to the papers by LEVAN (1938) and MANGENOT (1942).The strong interest in the colchicine effect in reccnt years has led to the discovery that there are also many other substances having the same effect on mitosis.Thus, the hydrocarbon acenaphthene [SHMUCK (1938), KOSTOFF (1938), NAVASHIN (1938), aria others] was found to induce typical colchicine mitoses, and has also in many cases been applied successfully for the production of polyploids.A review of many of the substances known to have this effect on mitosis is given by MANGENOT (1931) (see also KRYTHE and WELLENSIEK, 1. c.).The substances reported as active b y various authors belong to the most different groups of the organic system.The efforts to correlate the activity ~~ ~-
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".