MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283724849 · doi:10.1242/dev.200391

Absence of a robust mitotic timer mechanism in early preimplantation mouse embryos leads to chromosome instability

2022· article· en· W4283724849 on OpenAlexafffund
Adélaïde Allais, Greg FitzHarris

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalFondation Jean-Louis LévesqueMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyMitosisEmbryoCell biologyMechanism (biology)Chromosome instabilityTimerGeneticsInstabilityGenome instabilityChromosomeDNAGeneDNA damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preimplantation embryos often consist of a combination of euploid and aneuploid cells, suggesting that safeguards preventing the generation and propagation of aneuploid cells in somatic cells might be deficient in embryos. In somatic cells, a mitotic timer mechanism has been described, in which even a small increase in the duration of M phase can cause a cell cycle arrest in the subsequent interphase, preventing further propagation of cells that have undergone a potentially hazardously long M phase. Here, we report that cell divisions in the mouse embryo and embryonic development continue even after a mitotic prolongation of several hours. However, similar M-phase extensions caused cohesion fatigue, resulting in prematurely separated sister chromatids and the production of micronuclei. Only extreme prolongation of M phase caused a subsequent interphase arrest, through a mechanism involving DNA damage. Our data suggest that the simultaneous absence of a robust mitotic timer and susceptibility of the embryo to cohesion fatigue could contribute to chromosome instability in mammalian embryos. This article has an associated 'The people behind the papers' interview.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207