Adherens Junction Distribution Mechanisms during Cell-Cell Contact Elongation in Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During Drosophila gastrulation, amnioserosa (AS) cells flatten and spread as an epithelial sheet. We used AS morphogenesis as a model to investigate how adherens junctions (AJs) distribute along elongating cell-cell contacts in vivo. As the contacts elongated, total AJ protein levels increased along their length. However, genetically blocking this AJ addition indicated that it was not essential for maintaining AJ continuity. Implicating other remodeling mechanisms, AJ photobleaching revealed non-directional lateral mobility of AJs along the elongating contacts, as well as local AJ removal from the membranes. Actin stabilization with jasplakinolide reduced AJ redistribution, and live imaging of myosin II along elongating contacts revealed fragmented, expanding and contracting actomyosin networks, suggesting a mechanism for lateral AJ mobility. Actin stabilization also increased total AJ levels, suggesting an inhibition of AJ removal. Implicating AJ removal by endocytosis, clathrin endocytic machinery accumulated at AJs. However, dynamin disruption had no apparent effect on AJs, suggesting the involvement of redundant or dynamin-independent mechanisms. Overall, we propose that new synthesis, lateral diffusion, and endocytosis play overlapping roles to populate elongating cell-cell contacts with evenly distributed AJs in this in vivo system.
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) | 0.000 | 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".