Structure of kinetochore fibres in crane‐fly spermatocytes after irradiation with an ultraviolet microbeam: Neither microtubules nor actin filaments remain in the irradiated region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied chromosome movement after kinetochore microtubules were severed. Severing a kinetochore fibre in living crane-fly spermatocytes with an ultraviolet microbeam creates a kinetochore stub, a birefringent remnant of the spindle fibre connected to the kinetochore and extending only to the edge of the irradiated region. After the irradiation, anaphase chromosomes either move poleward led by their stubs or temporarily stop moving. We examined actin and/or microtubules in irradiated cells by means of confocal fluorescence microscopy or serial-section reconstructions from electron microscopy. For each cell thus examined, chromosome movement had been recorded continuously until the moment of fixation. Kinetochore microtubules were completely severed by the ultraviolet microbeam in cells in which chromosomes continued to move poleward after the irradiation: none were seen in the irradiated regions. Similarly, actin filaments normally present in kinetochore fibres were severed by the ultraviolet microbeam irradiations: the irradiated regions contained no actin filaments and only local spots of non-filamentous actin. There was no difference in irradiated regions when the associated chromosomes continued to move versus when they stopped moving. Thus, one cannot explain motion with severed kinetochore microtubules in terms of either microtubules or actin-filaments bridging the irradiated region. The data seem to negate current models for anaphase chromosome movement and support a model in which poleward chromosome movement results from forces generated within the spindle matrix that propel kinetochore fibres or kinetochore stubs poleward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".