In Situ Hybridization of Meiotic Prophase Chromosomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In preparations of highly condensed metaphase chromosomes, it is often difficult to resolve in situ hybridization signals of probes to nearby regions. This is in part, a result of traditional fixation procedures that use alcohol, acetic acid, and/or relatively strong ionic conditions, all of which can cause chromosome condensation. The limit of resolution may be improved by using free chromatin or DNA-halo preparations as described in Chapters 10 and 11 of this volume. An alternative method of detecting proximal DNA sequences is to use whole-mount, surface spread meiotic prophase chromosomes (, ), which have less condensed chromatin and a well defined axial core that is much longer than that of a metaphase chromosome. We have tested this system using two probes () against low-copy repeats, 5.5 map units apart on the X chromosome () as shown in Fig. 1. On metaphase chromosomes, these signals wereclose together and often overlapped. However, a distance of several micrometers separated the signals on pachytene chromosomes. This type of mapping is useful provided one keeps in mind that the chromatin is arranged in loops around a protein core, the synaptonemal complex (SC) (Fig. 2) (), and that these loops are of considerable size relative to those of the metaphase chromosome. Thus, a sequence at the top of a 5-μm loop could appear some distance from the SC loop attachment point, depending on how the loop settles during chromosome preparation. Therefore, the size of the loop limits the resolution of the probes a few μm apart. However, if the probes are very close together (a few megabases), the decondensed chromatin permits resolving signals from probes to adjacent loci or to cosmid probes of different regions within the same gene.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".