Homologous chromosome pairing in meiosis of higher eukaryotes—still an enigma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meiosis is the basis of the generative reproduction of eukaryotes. The crucial first step is homologous chromosome pairing. In higher eukaryotes, micrometer-scale chromosomes, micrometer distances apart, are brought together by nanometer DNA sequences, at least a factor of 1000 size difference. Models of homology search, homologue movement, and pairing at the DNA level in higher eukaryotes are primarily based on studies with yeast where the emphasis is on the induction and repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB). For such a model, the very large nuclei of most plants and animals present serious problems. Homology search without DSBs cannot be explained by models based on DSB repair. The movement of homologues to meet each other and make contact at the molecular level is not understood. These problems are discussed and the conclusion is that at present practically nothing is known of meiotic homologue pairing in higher eukaryotes up to the formation of the synaptonemal complex, and that new, necessarily speculative models must be developed. Arguments are given that RNA plays a central role in homology search and a tentative model involving RNA in homology search is presented. A role of actin in homologue movement is proposed. The primary role of DSBs in higher eukaryotes is concluded to not be in paring but in the preparation of Holliday junctions, ultimately leading to chromatid exchange.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".