MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051723944 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201401094

The nebulin repeat protein Lasp regulates I-band architecture and filament spacing in myofibrils

2014· article· en· W2051723944 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabelle Fernandes, Frieder Schöck

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNebulinSarcomereMyosinActinBiologyNemaline myopathyMyofibrilCell biologyProtein filamentMyocyteTitinGeneticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in nebulin, a giant muscle protein with 185 actin-binding nebulin repeats, are the major cause of nemaline myopathy in humans. Nebulin sets actin thin filament length in sarcomeres, potentially by stabilizing thin filaments in the I-band, where nebulin and thin filaments coalign. However, the precise role of nebulin in setting thin filament length and its other functions in regulating power output are unknown. Here, we show that Lasp, the only member of the nebulin family in Drosophila melanogaster, acts at two distinct sites in the sarcomere and controls thin filament length with just two nebulin repeats. We found that Lasp localizes to the Z-disc edges to control I-band architecture and also localizes at the A-band, where it interacts with both actin and myosin to set proper filament spacing. Furthermore, introducing a single amino acid change into the two nebulin repeats of Lasp demonstrated different roles for each domain and established Lasp as a suitable system for studying nebulin repeat function.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207