MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975266382 · doi:10.4161/cc.6.22.4941

Control At The Cell Center: The Role Of Spindle Poles In Cytoskeletal Organization And Cell Cycle Regulation

2007· review· en· W1975266382 on OpenAlexaff
Lara Cuschieri, Thao Nguyen, Jackie Vogel

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotubule organizing centerCell biologyCentrosomeMicrotubuleBiologyMicrotubule nucleationCell cycleSpindle pole bodyCytoskeletonOrganelleTubulinSpindle apparatusCell divisionCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microtubule organizing centres (MTOCs), which include fungal spindle pole bodies and centrosome in higher eukaryotes, are a structurally diverse group of organelles that share a conserved role in microtubule nucleation and spindle formation. However, recent studies propose that the function of MTOC components extends far beyond these established roles. Numerous cell cycle regulators, checkpoint proteins and microtubule plus tip binding proteins localize to MTOCs during the cell cycle, suggesting that these organelles serve as cellular scaffolds. In addition, several MTOC components such as gamma-tubulin and its associating proteins have been directly implicated in the control of cell cycle progression, activation of checkpoint responses and the regulation of microtubule organization and dynamics. Collectively, these findings implicate MTOCs as cellular control centers that coordinate events at both microtubule minus ends and plus ends with the cell cycle. In this review, we discuss recent studies that support a role for MTOC components, in particular gamma-tubulin, in cell cycle progression, checkpoint response and the coordination of microtubule organization and dynamics.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207