MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093473104 · doi:10.1139/g01-092

The pericentromeric heterochromatin of the grass<i>Zingeria biebersteiniana</i>(2<i>n</i>= 4) is composed of Zbcen1-type tandem repeats that are intermingled with accumulated dispersedly organized sequences

2001· article· en· W2093473104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Verity A Saunders, Andreas Houben

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsBiologyRetrotransposonHeterochromatinTandem repeatRepeated sequenceCentromereGeneticsGenomeChromosomeDNAConstitutive heterochromatinTransposable elementGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA reassociation and hydroxyapatite chromatography were used to isolate high-copy DNA of the grass Zingeria biebersteiniana (2n = 4). In situ hybridization demonstrated that the DNA isolated was enriched for pericentromere-specific repetitive sequences. One abundant pericentromere-specific component is the differentially methylated tandem-repeat family Zbcen1. Other sequences isolated, Zb46 and Zb47A, are dispersed and display similarity to parts of the gypsy- and copia-like retrotransposable elements of other grasses. In situ hybridization with the copia-like sequence Zb47A resulted in dispersed labelling along the chromosome arms, with a significant signal accumulation in the pericentromeric region of all chromosomes. It is concluded that the pericentromeric heterochromatin of Z. biebersteiniana is composed of members of the Zbcen1 tandem repeat family and that these tandem arrays are intermingled with accumulated putative copia-like retrotransposon sequences. An observed Rab1 interphase orientation suggests that the length of the chromosomes rather than the genome size is the determining factor of the Rab1 phenomenon.

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 score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207