MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009272942 · doi:10.4161/cc.28106

The aggregation and inheritance of damaged proteins determines cell fate during mitosis

2014· article· en· W2009272942 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary Rose Bufalino, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyMitosisCell biologyCell divisionCell cycleCellCell growthAsymmetric cell divisionProteasomeSomatic cellCell Cycle ProteinCell fate determinationInclusion bodiesGeneticsTranscription factorGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent evidence suggests that proliferating cells polarize damaged proteins during mitosis to protect one cell from aging, and that the structural conformation of damaged proteins mediates their toxicity. We report that the growth, resistance to stress, and differentiation characteristics of a cancer cell line (PC12) with an inducible Huntingtin (Htt) fused to enhanced green fluorescent protein (GFP) are dependent on the conformation of Htt. Cell progeny containing inclusion bodies have a longer cell cycle and increased resistance to stress than those with diffuse Htt. Using live imaging, we demonstrate that asymmetric division resulting from a cell containing a single inclusion body produces sister cells with different fates. The cell that receives the inclusion body has decreased proliferation and increased differentiation compared with its sister cell without Htt. This is the first report that reveals a functional consequence of the asymmetric division of damaged proteins in mammalian cells, and we suggest that this is a result of inclusion body-induced proteasome impairment.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207