Mitotic instability in triploid and tetraploid one-year-old eastern oyster, <i>Crassostrea virginica</i>, assessed by cytogenetic and flow cytometry techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For commercial oyster aquaculture, triploidy has significant advantages. To produce triploids, the principal technology uses diploid × tetraploid crosses. The development of tetraploid brood stock for this purpose has been successful, but as more is understood about tetraploids, it seems clear that chromosome instability is a principal feature in oysters. This paper is a continuation of work to investigate chromosome instability in polyploid Crassostrea virginica. We established families between tetraploids-apparently stable (non-mosaic) and unstable (mosaic)-and normal reference diploids, creating triploid groups, as well as tetraploids between mosaic and non-mosaic tetraploids. Chromosome loss was about the same for triploid juveniles produced from either mosaic or non-mosaic tetraploids or from either male or female tetraploids. However, there was a statistically significant difference in chromosome loss in tetraploid juveniles produced from mosaic versus non-mosaic parents, with mosaics producing more unstable progeny. These results confirm that chromosome instability, as manifested in mosaic tetraploids, is of little concern for producing triploids, but it is clearly problematic for tetraploid breeding. Concordance between the results from cytogenetics and flow cytometry was also tested for the first time in oysters, by assessing the ploidy of individuals using both techniques. Results between the two were non-concordant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".