MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132885759 · doi:10.1242/jcs.037259

Dynamic release of nuclear RanGTP triggers TPX2-dependent microtubule assembly during the apoptotic execution phase

2009· article· en· W2132885759 on OpenAlexaff
David K. Moss, Andrew Wilde, Jon D. Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of BristolResearch Councils UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsRanCell biologyMicrotubuleBiologyMitosisSpindle apparatusNuclear transportTubulinMicrotubule-associated proteinApoptosisSpindle pole bodyCytoplasmCell nucleusCellCell divisionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During apoptosis, the interphase microtubule network is dismantled then later replaced by a novel, non-centrosomal microtubule array. These microtubules assist in the peripheral redistribution of nuclear fragments in the apoptotic cell; however, the regulation of apoptotic microtubule assembly is not understood. Here, we demonstrate that microtubule assembly depends upon the release of nuclear RanGTP into the apoptotic cytoplasm because this process is blocked in apoptotic cells overexpressing dominant-negative GDP-locked Ran (T24N). Actin-myosin-II contractility provides the impetus for Ran release and, consequently, microtubule assembly is blocked in blebbistatin- and Y27632-treated apoptotic cells. Importantly, the spindle-assembly factor TPX2 (targeting protein for Xklp2), colocalises with apoptotic microtubules, and siRNA silencing of TPX2, but not of the microtubule motors Mklp1 and Kid, abrogates apoptotic microtubule assembly. These data provide a molecular explanation for the assembly of the apoptotic microtubule network, and suggest important similarities with the process of RanGTP- and TPX2-mediated mitotic spindle formation.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207