MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126704867 · doi:10.1091/mbc.e11-10-0832

Chk1 and Wee1 kinases coordinate DNA replication, chromosome condensation, and anaphase entry

2012· article· en· W2126704867 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Fasulo, Carol Koyama, Kristina R. Yu, Ellen Homola, Tao Hsieh, Shelagh D. Campbell, William Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology of the Cell · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPremature chromosome condensationBiologyAnaphaseCell biologyCell cycleAphidicolinMitosisCell cycle checkpointProphaseChromosome segregationGeneticsChromosomeCellMeiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defects in DNA replication and chromosome condensation are common phenotypes in cancer cells. A link between replication and condensation has been established, but little is known about the role of checkpoints in monitoring chromosome condensation. We investigate this function by live analysis, using the rapid division cycles in the early Drosophila embryo. We find that S-phase and topoisomerase inhibitors delay both the initiation and the rate of chromosome condensation. These cell cycle delays are mediated by the cell cycle kinases chk1 and wee1. Inhibitors that cause severe defects in chromosome condensation and congression on the metaphase plate result in delayed anaphase entry. These delays are mediated by wee1 and are not the result of spindle assembly checkpoint activation. In addition, we provide the first detailed live analysis of the direct effect of widely used anticancer agents (aclarubicin, ICRF-193, VM26, doxorubicin, camptothecin, aphidicolin, hydroxyurea, cisplatin, mechlorethamine and x-rays) on key nuclear and cytoplasmic cell cycle events.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology of the CellSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207