Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether mitotic segregation of chromatids is random or programmed assumes great significance for cellular differentiation if one recognizes that sister chromatids may have epigenetic differences and carry them from one generation into the next. The literature was examined for evidence of non-random chromosomal and chromatid segregation. Many organisms were described as undergoing non-random homologue segregation in meiosis I. The explanations for these phenomena were attributed in some instances, to peculiarities of the meiotic spindle, though in some convincing experiments, the epigenetic heterochromatin of the kinetochores was implicated. The few existing descriptions of non-random mitotic segregation were also described. Existing literature on ultrastructural, immunohistochemical, and physiological features of the chromatid kinetochores during the mitotic process was searched for evidence of asymmetry or structural differences between sister chromatids, which is presented. Also reported are descriptions of how epigenetic changes and cell differentiation can influence centromeric function and ultimately, kinetochore function. Fundamental to the hypothesis of gene regulation presented here, is the assumption that genetic foci on different chromosomes interact, and must be proximate to each other and stereologically compatible for interactions to occur. Also described are spatial changes in chromosomal territories associated with function and differentiation. These territories can be in varying nuclear locations depending on gene function, and may show asymmetry between daughter cells. Despite evidence presented for the possibility of non-random chromatid segregation at mitosis, this question will remain unanswered until the matter is specifically addressed by experiment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".