MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Remodeling the Cytoskeleton for Growth and Form: An Overview with Some New Views

2003· review· en· W1908941310 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey O. Wasteneys, Moira E. Galway

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Plant Biology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersNature
KeywordsCytoskeletonCell biologyExocytosisActin cytoskeletonActinBiologyMicrotubuleActin remodelingTip growthCellGeneticsSecretionBiochemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cytoskeleton coordinates all aspects of growth in plant cells, including exocytosis of membrane and wall components during cell expansion. This review seeks to integrate current information about cytoskeletal components in plants and the role they play in generating cell form. Advances in genome analysis have fundamentally changed the nature of research strategies and generated an explosion of new information on the cytoskeleton-associated proteins, their regulation, and their role in signaling to the cytoskeleton. Some of these proteins appear novel to plants, but many have close homologues in other eukaryotic systems. It is becoming clear that the mechanisms behind cell growth are essentially similar across the growth continuum, which ranges from tip growth to diffuse expansion. Remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton at sites of exocytosis is an especially critical feature of polarized and may also contribute to axial growth. We evaluate the most recent work on the signaling mechanisms that continually remodel the actin cytoskeleton via the activation of actin-binding proteins (ABPs) and consider the role the microtubule cytoskeleton plays in this process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations286
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Plant BiologySame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207