MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041788437 · doi:10.4161/cc.19685

The p21-activated kinase Pak1 regulates induction and migration of the neural crest in Xenopus

2012· article· en· W2041788437 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Bisson, Doris Wedlich, Tom Moss

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Cancer InstituteTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsBiologyXenopusCell biologyPAK1Cranial neural crestCDC42Neural crestSignal transductionKinaseCell migrationGeneticsGeneEmbryoCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pak1 is a member of the PAK family of serine/threonine kinases that are downstream effectors of Rac1 and Cdc42 small GTPases and are implicated in cytoskeleton reorganization. Early expression of Pak1 in Xenopus embryos is tissue restricted, suggesting a role in organogenesis and in cranial neural crest (CNC) cell migration. By observing CNC in vivo and after transplantation, we show that a dominant-negative (DN) Pak1 inhibits its migration. DN-Pak1 also specifically modified the expression of several NC markers. Twist expression was decreased and Snail1 expression posteriorized, but Snail2 (Slug), Sox9 and AP2 were unaffected. DN-Pak1 inhibition of CNC migration could be rescued with Snail1 but not with Twist, which, in fact, cooperated with DN-Pak1 in inhibiting migration. The data confirm that neither Snail1 nor Snail2 expression alone is sufficient for Xenopus CNC migration. Furthermore, they show that, in this tissue, Snail1 and Snail2 expression is not interdependent, nor are these factors subject to obligatory co-regulation, and that their expression depends on signal transduction. Our results also represent the first evidence that Pak1 links extracellular signals to the genetic cascade of transcription factors necessary for CNC specification.

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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207