MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529396319 · doi:10.1534/g3.116.033050

Distinct and Overlapping Requirements for Cyclins A, B, and B3 in<i>Drosophila</i>Female Meiosis

2016· article· en· W2529396319 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Bourouh, Rajdeep Dhaliwal, Ketki Rana, Sucheta Sinha, Zhihao Guo, Andrew Swan

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyCyclin AMeiosisCyclin BMeiosis IICyclinCohesinCyclin A2AnaphaseGeneticsCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Meiosis, like mitosis, depends on the activity of the cyclin dependent kinase Cdk1 and its cyclin partners. Here, we examine the specific requirements for the three mitotic cyclins, A, B, and B3 in meiosis of Drosophila melanogaster. We find that all three cyclins contribute redundantly to nuclear envelope breakdown, though cyclin A appears to make the most important individual contribution. Cyclin A is also required for biorientation of homologs in meiosis I. Cyclin B3, as previously reported, is required for anaphase progression in meiosis I and in meiosis II. We find that it also plays a redundant role, with cyclin A, in preventing DNA replication during meiosis. Cyclin B is required for maintenance of the metaphase I arrest in mature oocytes, for spindle organization, and for timely progression through the second meiotic division. It is also essential for polar body formation at the completion of meiosis. With the exception of its redundant role in meiotic maturation, cyclin B appears to function independently of cyclins A and B3 through most of meiosis. We conclude that the three mitotic cyclin-Cdk complexes have distinct and overlapping functions in Drosophila female meiosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207