Analysis of Cortical Flow Models In Vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical flow, the directed movement of cortical F-actin and cortical organelles, is a basic cellular motility process. Microtubules are thought to somehow direct cortical flow, but whether they do so by stimulating or inhibiting contraction of the cortical actin cytoskeleton is the subject of debate. Treatment of Xenopus oocytes with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) triggers cortical flow toward the animal pole of the oocyte; this flow is suppressed by microtubules. To determine how this suppression occurs and whether it can control the direction of cortical flow, oocytes were subjected to localized manipulation of either the contractile stimulus (PMA) or microtubules. Localized PMA application resulted in redirection of cortical flow toward the site of application, as judged by movement of cortical pigment granules, cortical F-actin, and cortical myosin-2A. Such redirected flow was accelerated by microtubule depolymerization, showing that the suppression of cortical flow by microtubules is independent of the direction of flow. Direct observation of cortical F-actin by time-lapse confocal analysis in combination with photobleaching showed that cortical flow is driven by contraction of the cortical F-actin network and that microtubules suppress this contraction. The oocyte germinal vesicle serves as a microtubule organizing center in Xenopus oocytes; experimental displacement of the germinal vesicle toward the animal pole resulted in localized flow away from the animal pole. The results show that 1) cortical flow is directed toward areas of localized contraction of the cortical F-actin cytoskeleton; 2) microtubules suppress cortical flow by inhibiting contraction of the cortical F-actin cytoskeleton; and 3) localized, microtubule-dependent suppression of actomyosin-based contraction can control the direction of cortical flow. We discuss these findings in light of current models of cortical flow.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".