MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133159857 · doi:10.1242/jcs.149922

The dynamic protein Knl1 – a kinetochore rendezvous

2014· review· en· W2133159857 on OpenAlexafffund
Priyanka Ghongane, Maria Kapanidou, Adeel Asghar, Sabine Elowe, Víctor M. Bolaños-García

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyKinetochoreBUB1CentromereCell biologyScaffold proteinChromosome segregationSpindle checkpointComputational biologyGeneticsChromosomeSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knl1 (also known as CASC5, UniProt Q8NG31) is an evolutionarily conserved scaffolding protein that is required for proper kinetochore assembly, spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC) function and chromosome congression. A number of recent reports have confirmed the prominence of Knl1 in these processes and provided molecular details and structural features that dictate Knl1 functions in higher organisms. Knl1 recruits SAC components to the kinetochore and is the substrate of certain protein kinases and phosphatases, the interplay of which ensures the exquisite regulation of the aforementioned processes. In this Commentary, we discuss the overall domain organization of Knl1 and the roles of this protein as a versatile docking platform. We present emerging roles of the protein interaction motifs present in Knl1, including the RVSF, SILK, MELT and KI motifs, and their role in the recruitment and regulation of the SAC proteins Bub1, BubR1, Bub3 and Aurora B. Finally, we explore how the regions of low structural complexity that characterize Knl1 are implicated in the cooperative interactions that mediate binding partner recognition and scaffolding activity by Knl1.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations51
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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