Mechanisms of Self-Organization of Cortical Microtubules in Plants Revealed by Computational Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microtubules confined to the two-dimensional cortex of elongating plant cells must form a parallel yet dispersed array transverse to the elongation axis for proper cell wall expansion. Some of these microtubules exhibit free minus-ends, leading to migration at the cortex by hybrid treadmilling. Collisions between microtubules can result in plus-end entrainment ("zippering") or rapid depolymerization. Here, we present a computational model of cortical microtubule organization. We find that plus-end entrainment leads to self-organization of microtubules into parallel arrays, whereas catastrophe-inducing collisions do not. Catastrophe-inducing boundaries (e.g., upper and lower cross-walls) can tune the orientation of an ordered array to a direction transverse to elongation. We also find that changes in dynamic instability parameters, such as in mor1-1 mutants, can impede self-organization, in agreement with experimental data. Increased entrainment, as seen in clasp-1 mutants, conserves self-organization, but delays its onset and fails to demonstrate increased ordering. We find that branched nucleation at acute angles off existing microtubules results in distinctive sparse arrays and infer either that microtubule-independent or coparallel nucleation must dominate. Our simulations lead to several testable predictions, including the effects of reduced microtubule severing in katanin mutants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".