MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056193742 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504190102

The Rho GTP exchange factor Lfc promotes spindle assembly in early mitosis

2005· article· en· W2056193742 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Bakal, Dina Finan, José LaRose, Clark D. Wells, Gerald Gish, Sarang Kulkarni, Paulo De Sepulveda, Andrew Wilde, Robert Rottapel

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPrometaphaseCell biologyMitosisBiologySpindle apparatusGTPaseSpindle pole bodyGuanine nucleotide exchange factorCentrosomeProphaseCell cycleCell divisionCellGeneticsMeiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rho GTPases regulate reorganization of actin and microtubule cytoskeletal structures during both interphase and mitosis. The timing and subcellular compartment in which Rho GTPases are activated is controlled by the large family of Rho GTP exchange factors (RhoGEFs). Here, we show that the microtubule-associated RhoGEF Lfc is required for the formation of the mitotic spindle during prophase/prometaphase. The inability of cells to assemble a functioning spindle after Lfc inhibition resulted in a delay in mitosis and an accumulation of prometaphase cells. Inhibition of Lfc's primary target Rho GTPase during prophase/prometaphase, or expression of a catalytically inactive mutant of Lfc, also prevented normal spindle assembly and resulted in delays in mitotic progression. Coinjection of constitutively active Rho GTPase rescued the spindle defects caused by Lfc inhibition, suggesting the requirement of RhoGTP in regulating spindle assembly. Lastly, we implicate mDia1 as an important effector of Lfc signaling. These findings demonstrate a role for Lfc, Rho, and mDia1 during mitosis.

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)0.001
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
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

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

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207