MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977095305 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201106048

Molecular networks linked by Moesin drive remodeling of the cell cortex during mitosis

2011· article· en· W1977095305 on OpenAlexafffund
Chantal Roubinet, Barbara Decelle, Gaëtan Chicanne, Jonas F. Dorn, Bernard Payrastre, François Payre, Sébastien Carreno

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMoesinCell biologyCytokinesisMitosisCell cortexCortex (anatomy)RadixinCell divisionBiologyCellCytoskeletonNeuroscienceEzrinGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cortical mechanisms that drive the series of mitotic cell shape transformations remain elusive. In this paper, we identify two novel networks that collectively control the dynamic reorganization of the mitotic cortex. We demonstrate that Moesin, an actin/membrane linker, integrates these two networks to synergize the cortical forces that drive mitotic cell shape transformations. We find that the Pp1-87B phosphatase restricts high Moesin activity to early mitosis and down-regulates Moesin at the polar cortex, after anaphase onset. Overactivation of Moesin at the polar cortex impairs cell elongation and thus cytokinesis, whereas a transient recruitment of Moesin is required to retract polar blebs that allow cortical relaxation and dissipation of intracellular pressure. This fine balance of Moesin activity is further adjusted by Skittles and Pten, two enzymes that locally produce phosphoinositol 4,5-bisphosphate and thereby, regulate Moesin cortical association. These complementary pathways provide a spatiotemporal framework to explain how the cell cortex is remodeled throughout cell division.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations93
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207