MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110197429 · doi:10.1242/jcs.091884

Assembly of Bazooka polarity landmarks through a multifaceted membrane-association mechanism

2012· article· en· W2110197429 on OpenAlexafffund
R. F. Andrew McKinley, C.G. Yu, Tony Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsBiologyCell polarityCell biologyPDZ domainPolarity (international relations)Epithelial polarityScaffold proteinEctodermEmbryoMembraneSignal transductionCellGeneticsEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epithelial cell polarity is essential for animal development. The scaffold protein Bazooka (Baz/PAR-3) forms apical polarity landmarks to organize epithelial cells. However, it is unclear how Baz is recruited to the plasma membrane and how this is coupled with downstream effects. Baz contains an oligomerization domain, three PDZ domains, and binding regions for the protein kinase aPKC and phosphoinositide lipids. With a structure-function approach, we dissected the roles of these domains in the localization and function of Baz in the Drosophila embryonic ectoderm. We found that a multifaceted membrane association mechanism localizes Baz to the apical circumference. Although none of the Baz protein domains are essential for cortical localization, we determined that each contributes to cortical anchorage in a specific manner. We propose that the redundancies involved might provide plasticity and robustness to Baz polarity landmarks. We also identified specific downstream effects, including the promotion of epithelial structure, a positive-feedback loop that recruits aPKC, PAR-6 and Crumbs, and a negative-feedback loop that regulates Baz.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207