The single neurofilament subunit of lamprey may need another element for filament assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regenerating axon tips in transected lamprey spinal cord contain dense accumulations of neurofilaments (NFs), suggesting that NFs may play a role in the mechanism of axonal regeneration. Compared with heteropolymeric assemblies of NF triplet proteins in mammals, NF in lampreys has been thought to contain only a single subunit (NF180). This would imply that NF180 self-assembles, which would be important for manipulating its expression in studies of axonal regeneration. In order to study the possible role of NF in process outgrowth and to determine whether NF180 can self-assemble, its gene was transfected into mammalian and fish cell lines that either contain or lack vimentin. In transfected NIH3T3 cells, NF180 was poorly phosphorylated and its expression did not alter the length or number of cell processes. Nor did it appear to form typical intermediate filaments, suggesting that it may not self-assemble. NF180 also did not form typical filaments in SW13cl cells that either possessed or lacked vimentin, nor in transfected fish cells that were cultured at 18 degrees C. In vitro, NF180 could not self-assemble but interacted with NF-L to interrupt its self-assembly. When cotransfected with rat NF-L into SW13c1.2vim(-) cells, NF180 did form thick, rod-like filamentous structures on immunofluorescence. More typical NFs were observed when NF180 was cotransfected with both NF-L and NF-M. Thus, NF180 cannot self-assemble but appears to require one or more additional elements for incorporation into NFs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".