MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417713113 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-005-8_2

FISH and Immunofluorescence Staining in Chlamydomonas

2011· article· en· W2417713113 on OpenAlexaff
James Uniacke, Daniel A. Colón‐Ramos, William Zerges

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlamydomonas reinhardtiiChlamydomonasStainingImmunofluorescenceBiologyIn situFish <Actinopterygii>Model organismCell biologyFluorescenceIn situ hybridizationFluorescence in situ hybridizationGeneGeneticsGene expressionChemistryAntibodyFisheryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we describe how to use fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunofluorescence staining to determine the in situ distributions of specific mRNAs and proteins in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. This unicellular eukaryotic green alga is a major model organism in cell biological research. Chlamydomonas is well suited for these approaches because one can determine the cytological location of fluorescence signals within a characteristic cellular anatomy relative to prominent cytological markers. Moreover, FISH and IF staining offer practical alternatives to techniques involving fluorescent proteins, which are difficult to express and detect in Chlamydomonas. The main goal of this review is to describe these powerful tools and to facilitate their routine use in Chlamydomonas research.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207