MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180291009 · doi:10.1002/jez.b.23069

Early, nonlethal ploidy and genome size quantification using confocal microscopy in zebrafish embryos

2021· article· en· W3180291009 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher D. Small, James P. Davis, Bryan D. Crawford, Tillmann J. Benfey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental Evolution · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPloidyBiologyZebrafishPolyploidGenomeGenome sizeLive cell imagingDevelopmental biologyEmbryoConfocal microscopyCell biologyCytoplasmGeneticsCellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ploidy transitions through whole genome duplication have shaped evolution by allowing the sub- and neo-functionalization of redundant copies of highly conserved genes to express novel traits. The nuclear:cytoplasmic (n:c) ratio is maintained in polyploid vertebrates resulting in larger cells, but body size is maintained by a concomitant reduction in cell number. Ploidy can be manipulated easily in most teleosts, and the zebrafish, already well established as a model system for biomedical research, is therefore an excellent system in which to study the effects of increased cell size and reduced cell numbers in polyploids on development and physiology. Here we describe a novel technique using confocal microscopy to measure genome size and determine ploidy non-lethally at 48 h post-fertilization (hpf) in transgenic zebrafish expressing fluorescent histones. Volumetric analysis of myofiber nuclei using open-source software can reliably distinguish diploids and triploids from a mixed-ploidy pool of embryos for subsequent experimentation. We present an example of this by comparing heart rate between confirmed diploid and triploid embryos at 54 hpf.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental EvolutionSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207