MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141092224 · doi:10.1139/g01-022

Mitotic-cycle time and the development of embryo and endosperm in compatible and incompatible crosses in tuber-bearing<i>Solanum</i>species

2001· article· en· W2141092224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricardo W. Masuelli

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndospermBiologySolanumEmbryoPloidyBotanyHybridGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the relationship between early seed development and the EBN (endosperm balance number) hypothesis, the embryo and endosperm growth rates in crosses among Solanum spp. with the same and different EBNs were analyzed. For the embryo, the differences in the mean cell-doubling time (MCDT) between the compatible species 2x Solanum gourlayi and Solanum acaule was 3.9 h, whereas the incompatible species Solanum commersonii had MCDT differences of 10 and 13.9 h with 2x S. gourlayi and S. acaule, respectively. The embryo growth rates of the 2EBN species S. acaule and S. gourlayi were almost twice as fast as that of the 1EBN species S. commersonii. Nuclei of variable sizes were observed in the endosperms resulting from incompatible crosses. The author discusses the possibility that the collapse of the endosperm in inter-EBN crosses could be caused by differences in the MCDT between the parents that produce hybrid endosperms with high levels of DNA synthesis and transcription activity, resulting in increased nuclear size. A model is proposed to explain the formation of enlarged endosperm nuclei in incompatible crosses in the genus Solanum.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207