MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000444231 · doi:10.1002/jnr.21920

Modulation of microtubule dynamics by the microtubule‐associated protein 1a

2008· article· en· W2000444231 on OpenAlexaff
Elliott Faller, David L. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotubuleBiologyCell biologyTubulinMicrotubule-associated proteinMotilityMicrotubule nucleationFluorescence microscopeBiophysicsCellFluorescenceBiochemistryCentrosomeCell cyclePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) interact with microtubules to regulate the various dynamic stages of microtubules. The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of myc-tagged MAP1a fragments on microtubule dynamic phases in vivo. Cells from an epithelial kidney cell line (LLCPK1) that had been permanently transfected with human green fluorescent protein (GFP)-alpha-tubulin were transiently transfected with myc-tagged MAP1a fragments. Cells expressing MAP1a fragments were used to make direct observations of microtubule dynamics in living cells using fluorescence microscopy. All truncated MAP1a heavy chain fragments that contained the microtubule-binding domain were shown to associate with microtubules. Truncated fragments containing different regions of the projection domain of MAP1a demonstrated variations in their impact on microtubule dynamic events by promoting growth or inhibition of shortening phases. In contrast to MAP1a, MAP2c bundled microtubules and resulted in a complete arrest of microtubule motility. Results from the present study suggest that MAP1a promotes slow, stable growth of microtubules. This type of growth may be important in the maintenance and restructuring of adult neurons.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207