MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561934665 · doi:10.1101/pdb.prot088740

Analysis of the Budding Yeast Cell Cycle by Flow Cytometry

2017· article· en· W2561934665 on OpenAlexaff
Adam P. Rosebrock

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBudding yeastFlow cytometryYeastBuddingCell cycleCell biologyFlow (mathematics)CellChemistryBiologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeMolecular biologyBiochemistryMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA synthesis is one of the landmark events in the cell cycle: G 1 cells have one copy of the genome, S phase cells are actively engaged in DNA synthesis, and G 2 cells have twice as much nuclear DNA as G 1 cells. Cellular DNA content can be measured by staining with a fluorescent dye followed by a flow-cytometric readout. This method provides a quantitative measurement of cell cycle position on a cell-by-cell basis at high speed. Using flow cytometry, tens of thousands of single-cell measurements can be generated in a few seconds. This protocol details staining of cells of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae for flow cytometry using Sytox Green dye in a method that can be scaled widely—from one sample to many thousands and operating on inputs ranging from 1 million to more than 100 million cells. Flow cytometry is preferred over light microscopy or Coulter analyses for the analysis of the cell cycle as DNA content and cell cycle position are being directly measured.

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)0.001
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor ProtocolsSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207