The dynamic behaviour of microtubules and their contributions to hyphal tip growth in Aspergillus nidulans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creating and maintaining cell polarity are complex processes that are not fully understood. Fungal hyphal tip growth is a highly polarized and dynamic process involving both F-actin and microtubules (MTs), but the behaviour and roles of the latter are unclear. To address this issue, MT dynamics and subunit distribution were analysed in a strain of Aspergillus nidulans expressing GFP-alpha-tubulin. Apical MTs are the most dynamic, the bulk of which move tipwards from multiple subapical spindle pole bodies, the only clear region of microtubule nucleation detected. MTs populate the apex predominantly by elongation at rates about three times faster than tip extension. This polymerization was facilitated by the tipward migration of MT subunits, which generated a tip-high gradient. Subapical regions of apical cells showed variable tubulin subunit distributions, without tipward flow, while subapical cells showed even tubulin subunit distribution and low MT dynamics. Short MTs, of a similar size to those reported in axons, also occasionally slid into the apex. During mitosis in apical cells, MT populations at the tip varied. Cells with less distance between the tip and the first nucleus were more likely to loose normal MT populations and dynamics. Reduced MTs in the tip, during mitosis or after exposure to the MT inhibitor carbendazim (MBC), generally correlated with reduced, but continuing growth and near-normal tip morphology. In contrast, the actin-disrupting agent latrunculin B reduced growth rates much more severely and dramatically distorted tip morphology. These results suggest substantial independence between MTs and hyphal tip growth and a more essential role for F-actin. Among MT-dependent processes possibly contributing to tip growth is the transportation of vesicles. However, preliminary ultrastructural data indicated a lack of direct MT-organelle interactions. It is suggested that the population of dynamic apical MTs enhance migration of the 'cytomatrix', thus ensuring that organelles and proteins maintain proximity to the constantly elongating tip.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".