MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993457391 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m510763200

The Ste20-like Kinase SLK Is Required for Cell Cycle Progression through G2

2005· article· en· W1993457391 on OpenAlexaff
Paul G. O’Reilly, Simona Wagner, Douglas J. Franks, Katia Cailliau, Edith Browaeys, Colette Dissous, Luc A. Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell cycleCellBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously shown that the Ste20-like kinase SLK is a microtubule-associated protein that can regulate actin reorganization during cell adhesion and spreading (Wagner, S., Flood, T. A., O'Reilly, P., Hume, K., and Sabourin, L. A. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 37685-37692). Because of its association with the microtubule network, we investigated whether SLK plays a role in cell cycle progression, a process that requires microtubule dynamics during mitosis. Consistent with microtubule association in exponentially growing cells, our results showed that SLK co-localizes with the mitotic spindle in cells undergoing mitosis. Expression of a kinase-inactive mutant or SLK small interfering RNAs inhibited cell proliferation and resulted in an accumulation of quiescent cells stimulated to re-enter the cell cycle in the G2 phase. Cultures expressing the mutant SLK displayed a normal pattern of cyclin D, E, and B expression but failed to down-regulate cyclin A levels, suggesting that they cannot proceed through M phase. In addition, these cultures displayed low levels of both phospho-H3 and active p34/cdc2 kinase. Overexpression of active SLK resulted in ectopic spindle assembly and the induction of cell cycle re-entry of Xenopus oocytes, suggesting that SLK is required for progression through G2 upstream of H1 kinase activation.

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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207