MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887802789 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0009

FISH analysis of <i>Zanthoxylum armatum</i> based on oligonucleotides for 5S rDNA and (GAA)<sub>6</sub>

2018· article· en· W2887802789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaomei Luo, Juncheng Liu, Jingyan Wang, Wei Gong, Liang Chen, Wenlin Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCentromereChromosomeFluorescence in situ hybridizationKaryotypeMetaphaseRibosomal DNAGeneticsChromomycin A3GenePhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using oligonucleotide probes for (GAA) 6 (18 bp) and ribosomal DNA (rDNA) (5S rDNA, 41 bp) was applied to analyse Zanthoxylum armatum. (GAA) 6 loci were detected on the pericentromeric regions of five chromosome pairs, and 5S rDNA loci were also detected on the pericentromeric regions of another two chromosome pairs. The densities and locations of (GAA) 6 and 5S rDNA signals varied between individual chromosomes. High-intensity (GAA) 6 signals were detected at the centromeres of two large and two smaller metacentric chromosomes. Relatively strong (GAA) 6 signals were detected at the centromeres of two relatively small metacentric chromosomes, although strong 5S rDNA signals were detected at the centromeres of two additional smaller metacentric chromosomes. Weak (GAA) 6 signals were detected at the centromeres of four large metacentric chromosomes, whereas weak 5S rDNA signals were detected at the centromeres of two smaller metacentric chromosomes. The remaining chromosomes exhibited no signals. Zanthoxylum armatum had 2n = ∼128. The lengths of the mitotic metaphase chromosomes ranged from 1.22 to 2.34 μm. Our results provide information that may be beneficial for future cytogenetic studies and could contribute to the physical assembly of the Zanthoxylum genome.

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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207