MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133355609 · doi:10.1139/g03-007

Chromosomal mapping of 18S28S and 5S rRNA genes by two-colour fluorescent in situ hybridization in six sturgeon species

2003· article· en· W2133355609 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Fontana, Massimo Lanfredi, Leonardo Congiu, Marilena Leis, Milvia Chicca, Remigio Rossi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHusoBiologySturgeonAcipenserPloidyChromosomeKaryotypeNucleolus organizer regionGeneticsZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number and distribution of the 18S-28S and 5S rRNA (rDNA) gene sequences were examined on mitotic chromosomes of six sturgeon species by two-colour in situ hybridization. Four of the six species, Huso huso, Acipenser stellatus, Acipenser sturio, and Acipenser ruthenus, with about 120 chromosomes, showed from six to eight 18S-28S rDNA signals, while 5S rDNA signals were on only one chromosome pair. The two species with 250-270 chromosomes, Acipenser baerii and Acipenser transmontanus, showed from 10 to 12 18S-28S sites and two chromosome pairs bearing 5S rDNA signals. In all examined species, the rather intense 5S rDNA signals apparently overlapped those of 18S-28S rDNA. These data support the diploid-tetraploid relationships between the two chromosome groups of sturgeons. The close association between the two rDNA families in species belonging to an ancestral fish order, such as Acipenseriformes, supports the hypothesis that the association represents a primitive condition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207