MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006224414 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0805546105

The atypical Rac activator Dock180 (Dock1) regulates myoblast fusion <i>in vivo</i>

2008· article· en· W2006224414 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Laurin, Nadine Fradet, Anne Blangy, Alan Hall, Kristiina Vuori, Jean‐François Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyMyogenesisCaenorhabditis elegansMyocyteGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dock1 (also known as Dock180) is a prototypical member of a new family of atypical Rho GTPase activators. Genetic studies in Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans have demonstrated that Dock1 orthologues in these organisms have a crucial role in activating Rac GTPase signaling. We generated mutant alleles of the closely related Dock1 and Dock5 genes to study their function in mammals. We report that while Dock5 is dispensable for normal mouse embryogenesis, Dock1 has an essential role in embryonic development. A dramatic reduction of all skeletal muscle tissues is observed in Dock1-null embryos. Mechanistically, this embryonic defect is attributed to a strong deficiency in myoblast fusion, which is detectable both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, we have uncovered a contribution of Dock5 toward myofiber development. These studies identify Dock1 and Dock5 as critical regulators of the fusion step during primary myogenesis in mammals and demonstrate that a specific component of the myoblast fusion machinery identified in Drosophila plays an evolutionarily conserved role in higher vertebrates.

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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations171
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207