MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099304384 · doi:10.1242/jcs.02681

Caught Nek-ing: cilia and centrioles

2005· review· en· W2099304384 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne M. Quarmby, Moe R. Mahjoub

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCentrioleCiliumBasal bodyContext (archaeology)MitosisCell biologyFlagellumEvolutionary biologySpindle apparatusCell Cycle ProteinVertebrateCell cycleCentrosomeGeneticsCellCell divisionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nek family of cell-cycle kinases is widely represented in eukaryotes and includes numerous proteins that were described only recently and remain poorly characterized. Comparing Neks in the context of clades allows us to examine the question of whether microbial eukaryotic Neks, although not strictly orthologs of their vertebrate counterparts, can provide clues to ancestral functions that might be retained in the vertebrate Neks. Relatives of the Nek2/NIMA proteins play important roles at the G2-M transition in nuclear envelope breakdown and centromere separation. Nek6, Nek7 and Nek9 also seem to regulate mitosis. By contrast, Nek1 and Nek8 have been linked with polycystic kidney disease. Results of statistical analysis indicate that the family coevolved with centrioles that function as both microtubule-organizing centers and the basal bodies of cilia. This evolutionary perspective, taken together with functional studies of microbial Neks, provides new insights into the cellular roles of the proteins and disease with which some of them have been linked.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations176
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207