Optimizing chromosome yield: a comparative analysis of harvesting, preparation and waste recovery methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mitotic chromosome preparation, it is crucial to maximize chromosome yield for downstream cytogenetic analysis. Using HeLa cells as a model adherent cell, we assessed and compared the recovery of chromosomes from the entire process as well as the fraction of chromosomes that would generally become discarded in the standardly used trypsinization and mitotic-shake-off chromosome preparation methods. A higher chromosome yield for polyamine (PA) and methanol acetic acid (MAA) chromosomes was achieved using the mitotic-shake-off method compared to trypsinization. Moreover, mitotic arrest using colcemid or nocodazole gave similar PA and MAA chromosome yields in the commonly collected fractions. Interestingly, when comparing the fractions that would usually be discarded in the mitotic-shake-off, for colcemid-treated cells compared to nocodazole-treated cells, a greater number of PA chromosomes was recovered from the former. Our results show that chromosomes can be retrieved from the waste media. These recovered chromosomes display a suitable morphology in all chromosome preparations, suggesting that in conditions where high chromosome yields are required, utilizing the mitotic-shake-off method and recovering the generally discarded chromosome fraction together with the commonly used fraction would aid in maximizing chromosome yield.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".