MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068080523 · doi:10.1039/c5sm00284b

Cluster coarsening on drops exhibits strong and sudden size-selectivity

2015· article· en· W2068080523 on OpenAlexafffund
Aidan I. Brown, Andrew D. Rutenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsAutophagyCluster (spacecraft)ScalingCluster sizeDrop (telecommunication)Chemical physicsBiophysicsSelectivityBiological systemReceptorMembraneChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceBiologyMolecular dynamicsBiochemistryComputational chemistryComputer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autophagy, an important process for degradation of cellular components, requires the targeting of autophagy receptor proteins to potential substrates. Receptor proteins have been observed to form clusters on membranes. To understand how receptor clusters might affect autophagy selectivity, we model cluster coarsening on a polydisperse collection of spherical drop-like substrates. Our model receptor corresponds to NBR1, which supports peroxisome autophagy. We recover dynamical scaling of cluster sizes, but find that changing the drop size distribution changes the cluster-size scaling distribution. The magnitude of this effect is similar to how changing the spatial-dimension affects scaling in bulk systems. We also observe a sudden onset of size-selection of the remaining drops with clusters, due to clusters evaporating from smaller drops and growing on larger drops. This coarsening-driven size selection provides a physical mechanism for autophagy selectivity, and may explain reports of size selection during peroxisome degradation.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207