MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137388392 · doi:10.1093/molehr/gam076

Analysis of replication protein A (RPA) in human spermatogenesis

2007· article· en· W2137388392 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Oliver‐Bonet, Mercedes Campillo, P.J. Turek, E. Ko, Renée H. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Human Reproduction · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsBiologyHomologous recombinationReplication protein AHomologous chromosomeCell biologyRecombinationMeiosisPairingMolecular biologyGeneticsDNADNA-binding proteinGenePhysicsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replication protein A (RPA) has been identified as a component of early recombination nodules. It is thought to stimulate homologous pairing and strand exchange reactions. The expression pattern of RPA in human spermatocytes has been analysed using immunocytogenetic techniques on testicular biopsies from adult male patients. What appears to be connecting RPA-filaments was observed between as yet unsynapsed homologous regions at early stages of zygotene. RPA foci were also observed in synaptic segments at zygotene and early pachytene, in numbers that peak at the end of zygotene. The presence of a localization pattern for RPA was also detected, but statistical analysis of distances between adjacent RPA foci shows that this pattern does not always follow a gamma distribution. Finally, it was determined that RPA is absent from non-centromeric heterochromatin in chromosome 9. The observed bridge-like structure could be the visualization of a proposed pre-synaptic RPA role in the strand invasion that precedes the formation of a Holliday Junction. These observations strengthen the original pre-synaptic model, although the visualization of post-synaptic RPA foci may indicate the presence of a different role for this protein during homologous recombination.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Human ReproductionSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207