MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091806499 · doi:10.4161/org.20261

Role of the extracellular matrix in epithelial morphogenesis

2012· review· en· W2091806499 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Labouesse

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganogenesis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracellular matrixHemidesmosomeMorphogenesisCell biologyMechanotransductionMechanosensitive channelsBiologyBasement membraneEpidermis (zoology)MechanosensationAnatomyAdherens junctionCellCadherinGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an essential role in organizing tissues, defining their shapes or in presenting growth factors. Their components have been well described in most species, but our understanding of the mechanisms that control ECM remodeling remains limited. Likewise, how the ECM contributes to cellular mechanical responses has been examined in few cases. Here, I review how studies performed in C. elegans have brought several significant advances on those topics. Focusing only on epithelial cells, I discuss basement membrane invasion by the anchor cell during vulva morphogenesis, a process that has greatly expanded our knowledge of ECM remodeling in vivo. I then discuss the ECM role in a novel mechanotransduction process, whereby muscle contractions stimulate the remodeling of hemidesmosome-like junctions in the epidermis, which highlights that these junctions are mechanosensitive. Finally, I discuss progress in defining the composition and potential roles of the apical ECM covering epidermal cells in embryos.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganogenesisSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207