MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101245222 · doi:10.3732/ajb.94.12.2063

Analysis of substage associations in prophase I of meiosis in floral buds of wild‐type <i>Arabidopsis thaliana</i> (Brassicaceae)

2007· article· en· W2101245222 on OpenAlexaff
Patti E. Stronghill, Clare A. Hasenkampf

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMeiosisHomologous chromosomeBrassicaceaeProphaseArabidopsisArabidopsis thalianaCentromereChromatinChromosomeBotanyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed an improved cytological protocol for producing high quality, light microscope images of plant meiotic chromosomes. Because the technique works on species with small genomes and thick microsporocyte cell walls, it should be useful for studying the wild relatives of Arabidopsis and other eudicots with small genomes. Combining this improved fixation protocol with our new analysis of associated substages in floral buds, we can unambiguously assign individual meiotic cells to particular substages of prophase I in Arabidopsis thaliana, even for difficult distinctions such as that between late zygotene or early diplotene. In this report we provide the first estimate of the individual duration of the zygotene and pachytene substages (4.8 h and 10.0 h, respectively) in A. thaliana. We also have examined the diffuse substage of prophase I and report that during this post-pachytene substage, nuclei retain the association of homologous nucleolus organizer regions and homologous centromeres, despite the generally diffuse chromatin and generally unpaired chromosome regions. Additionally, we have observed that centromeric regions of the chromosomes of diffuse-stage nuclei are highly condensed, more so than those of any other substage of prophase I.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207