MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117993955 · doi:10.1242/dev.001529

Focal adhesion kinase controls morphogenesis of the<i>Drosophila</i>optic stalk

2007· article· en· W2117993955 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Satoshi Murakami, Daiki Umetsu, Yuko Maeyama, Makoto Sato, Shoko Yoshida, Tetsuya Tabata

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceToray Science FoundationExelixis
KeywordsBiologyMorphogenesisFocal adhesionCell biologyDrosophila (subgenus)StalkAdhesionAnatomySignal transductionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photoreceptor cell axons (R axons) innervate optic ganglia in the Drosophila brain through the tubular optic stalk. This structure consists of surface glia (SG) and forms independently of R axon projection. In a screen for genes involved in optic stalk formation, we identified Fak56D encoding a Drosophila homolog of mammalian focal adhesion kinase (FAK). FAK is a main component of the focal adhesion signaling that regulates various cellular events, including cell migration and morphology. We show that Fak56D mutation causes severe disruption of the optic stalk structure. These phenotypes were completely rescued by Fak56D transgene expression in the SG cells but not in photoreceptor cells. Moreover, Fak56D genetically interacts with myospheroid, which encodes an integrin beta subunit. In addition, we found that CdGAPr is also required for optic stalk formation and genetically interacts with Fak56D. CdGAPr encodes a GTPase-activating domain that is homologous to that of mammalian CdGAP, which functions in focal adhesion signaling. Hence the optic stalk is a simple monolayered structure that can serve as an ideal system for studying glial cell morphogenesis and the developmental role(s) of focal adhesion signaling.

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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207