MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416494576 · doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-000-3_21

Use of Intact Xenopus Oocytes in Nucleocytoplasmic Transport Studies

2006· review· en· W2416494576 on OpenAlexaff
Nelly Panté

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenopusOocyteCytoplasmNuclear poreBiophysicsSubstrate (aquarium)Electron microscopeNuclear transportNucleusCell biologyCell nucleusChemistryNanotechnologyBiologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryPhysicsEmbryoOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of its large nucleus, the Xenopus laevis oocyte offers an excellent system to study nucleocytoplasmic transport. This system, in combination with electron microscopy, has provided much of our insight into the mechanisms of nuclear import and export. In a typical experiment, the nuclear transport substrate is first labeled with colloidal gold, and the resulting complex is injected into the cytoplasm (to study nuclear import) or the nucleus (to study nuclear export) of Xenopus oocytes. The oocytes are then fixed, dehydrated, infiltrated, and embedded into an epoxy resin. Following resin polymerization, thin sections of oocyte nuclei are obtained and examined under an electron microscope. Subsequent evaluation of the position and distribution of the gold-labeled substrate reveals whether the substrate has undergone nuclear import (or export) and the position of rate-limiting events. This chapter describes in detail the protocols for performing electron microscopy import assays with Xenopus oocytes and presents some data illustrating the types of experiments possible using this system.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207