The effects of actomyosin disruptors on the mechanical integrity of the avian crystalline lens.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Actin and myosin within the crystalline lens maintain the structural integrity of lens fiber cells and form a hexagonal lattice cradling the posterior surface of the lens. The actomyosin network was pharmacologically disrupted to examine the effects on lenticular biomechanics and optical quality. METHODS: One lens of 7-day-old White Leghorn chickens was treated with 10 µM of a disruptor and the other with 0.01% dimethyl sulfoxide (vehicle). Actin, myosin, and myosin light chain kinase (MLCK) disruptors were used. The stiffness and the optical quality of the control and treated lenses were measured. Western blotting and confocal imaging were used to confirm that treatment led to a disruption of the actomyosin network. The times for the lenses to recover stiffness to match the control values were also measured. RESULTS: Disruptor-treated lenses were significantly less stiff than their controls (p≤0.0274 for all disruptors). The disruptors led to changes in the relative protein amounts as well as the distributions of proteins within the lattice. However, the disruptors did not affect the clarity of the lenses (p≥0.4696 for all disruptors), nor did they affect spherical aberration (p = 0.02245). The effects of all three disruptors were reversible, with lenses recovering from treatment with actin, myosin, and MLCK disruptors after 4 h, 1 h, and 8 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cytoskeletal protein disruptors led to a decreased stiffness of the lens, and the effects were reversible. Optical quality was mostly unaffected, but the long-term consequences remain unclear. Our results raise the possibility that the mechanical properties of the avian lens may be actively regulated in vivo via adjustments to the actomyosin lattice.
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".