MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097068323 · doi:10.1242/dev.089557

Par3/Bazooka and phosphoinositides regulate actin protrusion formation during <i>Drosophila</i> dorsal closure and wound healing

2013· article· en· W2097068323 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karen Pickering, Juliana Alves‐Silva, Deborah C. I. Goberdhan, Tom H. Millard

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMcGill University
KeywordsCell biologyBiologyWound healingActinCell migrationAnatomyCellImmunologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective wound closure mechanisms are essential for maintenance of epithelial structure and function. The repair of wounded epithelia is primarily driven by the cells bordering the wound, which become motile after wounding, forming dynamic actin protrusions along the wound edge. The molecular mechanisms that trigger wound edge cells to become motile following tissue damage are not well understood. Using wound healing and dorsal closure in Drosophila, we identify a direct molecular link between changes in cell-cell adhesion at epithelial edges and induction of actin protrusion formation. We find that the scaffolding protein Par3/Bazooka and the lipid phosphatase Pten are specifically lost from cell-cell junctions at epithelial edges. This results in a localized accumulation of phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3), which promotes the formation of actin protrusions along the epithelial edge. Depleting PIP3 results in defective epithelial closure during both dorsal closure and wound healing. These data reveal a novel mechanism that directly couples loss of epithelial integrity to activation of epithelial closure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207