MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127552617 · doi:10.1101/2021.01.30.428896

Distinct classes of lagging chromosome underpin age-related oocyte aneuploidy in mouse

2021· preprint· en· W3127552617 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandar I. Mihajlović, Jenna Haverfield, Greg FitzHarris

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAneuploidyLaggingAnaphaseMeiosisChromosome segregationBiologyChromosomeOocyteGeneticsAndrologyEmbryoMedicineGenePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Chromosome segregation errors that cause oocyte aneuploidy increase in frequency with maternal age and are considered a major contributing factor of age-related fertility decline in females. A common age-associated chromosome segregation phenomenon in oocytes is the lagging anaphase chromosome, but whether anaphase laggards actually missegregate and cause aneuploidy is unclear. Here we show unexpectedly that lagging chromosomes in mouse oocytes comprise two mechanistically distinct classes of motion that we refer to as ‘Class-I’ and ‘Class-II’. We use imaging approaches and mechanistic interventions to dissociate the two classes, and find that whereas Class-II laggards are benign, Class-I laggards can directly cause aneuploidy. Most notably, a controlled prolongation of meiosis-I specifically lessens Class-I lagging to prevent aneuploidy. Our data thus reveal lagging chromosomes to be a cause of age-related aneuploidy in mouse oocytes and suggest that manipulating the cell cycle could increase the yield of useful oocytes in some contexts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207