MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039134153 · doi:10.4161/fly.4.2.11674

Free centrosomes: Where do they all come from?

2010· review· en· W2039134153 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFly · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCentrosomeBiologyMitosisCell biologyCentrosome cycleGeneticsCell cycleCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centrosomes act as major microtubule-organizing centers in most cell types. Their functions in interphase and mitosis are usually facilitated by their association with the nucleus. This may be particularly true in very large cells. Several papers report free centrosomes in syncytial Drosophila embryos. However, this phenotype often remains little explored. Yet, free centrosomes can occur by multiple mechanisms, including functional defects of the mitotic spindle, detachment of centrosomes from the nuclear envelope, centrosome inactivation upon DNA damage, and de novo centrosome genesis. Deciphering the cellular mechanism leading to free centrosomes upon a given perturbation such as a mutation or injection of a drug, can provide valuable clues regarding the nature of the molecular pathway affected. To this end, genetic and cytological tests, as well as time-lapse imaging are available. These studies can inform on the biology of centrosomes, cell cycle regulation and cytoskeletal dynamics. Here we briefly discuss what to make of free centrosomes in the fly embryo.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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