MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284164251 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517628112

Micronucleus formation causes perpetual unilateral chromosome inheritance in mouse embryos

2016· article· en· W2284164251 on OpenAlexafffund
Cayetana Vázquez-Diez, Kazuo Yamagata, Shardul Trivedi, Jenna Haverfield, Greg FitzHarris

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyFondation Jean-Louis LévesqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLalor Foundation
KeywordsBiologyEmbryoGeneticsMicronucleus testMitosisChromosomePloidyEmbryonic stem cellCell biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromosome segregation defects in cancer cells lead to encapsulation of chromosomes in micronuclei (MN), small nucleus-like structures within which dangerous DNA rearrangements termed chromothripsis can occur. Here we uncover a strikingly different consequence of MN formation in preimplantation development. We find that chromosomes from within MN become damaged and fail to support a functional kinetochore. MN are therefore not segregated, but are instead inherited by one of the two daughter cells. We find that the same MN can be inherited several times without rejoining the principal nucleus and without altering the kinetics of cell divisions. MN motion is passive, resulting in an even distribution of MN across the first two cell lineages. We propose that perpetual unilateral MN inheritance constitutes an unexpected mode of chromosome missegregation, which could contribute to the high frequency of aneuploid cells in mammalian embryos, but simultaneously may serve to insulate the early embryonic genome from chromothripsis.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations103
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207