Mitotic chromosomes scale to nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio and cell size in Xenopus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the rapid and reductive cleavage divisions of early embryogenesis, subcellular structures such as the nucleus and mitotic spindle scale to decreasing cell size. Mitotic chromosomes also decrease in size during development, presumably to scale coordinately with mitotic spindles, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. Here we combine in vivo and in vitro approaches using eggs and embryos from the frog Xenopus laevis to show that mitotic chromosome scaling is mechanistically distinct from other forms of subcellular scaling. We found that mitotic chromosomes scale continuously with cell, spindle, and nuclear size in vivo. However, unlike for spindles and nuclei, mitotic chromosome size cannot be reset by cytoplasmic factors from earlier developmental stages. In vitro, increasing nuclear-cytoplasmic (N/C) ratio is sufficient to recapitulate mitotic chromosome scaling, but not nuclear or spindle scaling, through differential loading of maternal factors during interphase. An additional pathway involving importin α scales mitotic chromosomes to cell surface area/volume ratio (SA/V) during metaphase. Finally, single-chromosome immunofluorescence and Hi-C data suggest that mitotic chromosomes shrink during embryogenesis through decreased recruitment of condensin I, resulting in major rearrangements of DNA loop architecture to accommodate the same amount of DNA on a shorter chromosome axis. Together, our findings demonstrate how mitotic chromosome size is set by spatially and temporally distinct developmental cues in the early embryo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".