MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063596948 · doi:10.1242/jcs.099242

Myosin VIIA regulates microvillus morphogenesis and interacts with cadherin Cad99C in <i>Drosophila</i> oogenesis

2014· article· en· W2063596948 on OpenAlexafffund
Cory Glowinski, Ri-Hua Sandy Liu, Xi Chen, Audrey A. Darabie, Dorothea Godt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyMicrovillusCadherinDrosophila (subgenus)MorphogenesisCell biologyMyosinOogenesisGeneticsEmbryogenesisEmbryoGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microvilli and related actin-based protrusions permit multiple interactions between cells and their environment. How the shape, length and arrangement of microvilli are determined remains largely unclear. To address this issue and explore the cooperation of the two main components of a microvillus, the central F-actin bundle and the enveloping plasma membrane, we investigated the expression and function of Myosin VIIA (Myo7A), which is encoded by crinkled (ck), and its interaction with cadherin Cad99C in the microvilli of the Drosophila follicular epithelium. Myo7A is present in the microvilli and terminal web of follicle cells, and associates with several other F-actin-rich structures in the ovary. Loss of Myo7A caused brush border defects and a reduction in the amount of the microvillus regulator Cad99C. We show that Myo7A and Cad99C form a molecular complex and that the cytoplasmic tail of Cad99C recruits Myo7A to microvilli. Our data indicate that Myo7A regulates the structure and spacing of microvilli, and interacts with Cad99C in vivo. A comparison of the mutant phenotypes suggests that Myo7A and Cad99C have co-dependent and independent functions in microvilli.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207