MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034064894 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.11.041

Integrins Regulate Apical Constriction via Microtubule Stabilization in the Drosophila Eye Disc Epithelium

2014· article· en· W2034064894 on OpenAlexaff
Vilaiwan M. Fernandes, Kasandra McCormack, Lindsay Lewellyn, Esther M. Verheyen

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell biologyApical constrictionIntegrinImaginal discBiologyMorphogenesisNeurogenesisMechanotransductionHedgehogMicrotubuleSignal transductionReceptorPhenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During morphogenesis, extracellular signals trigger actomyosin contractility in subpopulations of cells to coordinate changes in cell shape. To illuminate the link between signaling-mediated tissue patterning and cytoskeletal remodeling, we study the progression of the morphogenetic furrow (MF), the wave of apical constriction that traverses the Drosophila eye imaginal disc preceding photoreceptor neurogenesis. Apical constriction depends on actomyosin contractility downstream of the Hedgehog (Hh) and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) pathways. We identify a role for integrin adhesion receptors in MF progression. We show that Hh and BMP regulate integrin expression, the loss of which disrupts apical constriction and slows furrow progression; conversely, elevated integrins accelerate furrow progression. We present evidence that integrins regulate MF progression by promoting microtubule stabilization, since reducing microtubule stability rescues integrin-mediated furrow acceleration. Thus, integrins act as a genetic link between tissue-level signaling events and morphological change at the cellular level, leading to morphogenesis and neurogenesis in the eye.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207