MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158918551 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201103128

Visualization of dynein-dependent microtubule gliding at the cell cortex: implications for spindle positioning

2011· article· en· W2158918551 on OpenAlexafffund
Eva M. Gusnowski, Martin Srayko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDyneinAnaphaseBiologySpindle apparatusCell biologyMicrotubuleDynactinSpindle pole bodyCell cortexKinetochoreDynein ATPaseMitosisAstral microtubulesCell divisionCellCytoskeletonGeneticsCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynein motors move along the microtubule (MT) lattice in a processive "walking" manner. In the one-cell Caenorhabditis elegans embryo, dynein is required for spindle-pulling forces during mitosis. Posteriorly directed spindle-pulling forces are higher than anteriorly directed forces, and this imbalance results in posterior spindle displacement during anaphase and an asymmetric division. To address how dynein could be asymmetrically activated to achieve posterior spindle displacement, we developed an assay to measure dynein's activity on individual MTs at the embryo cortex. Our study reveals that cortical dynein motors maintain a basal level of activity that propels MTs along the cortex, even under experimental conditions that drastically reduce anaphase spindle forces. This suggests that dynein-based MT gliding is not sufficient for anaphase spindle-pulling force. Instead, we find that this form of dynein activity is most prominent during spindle centering in early prophase. We propose a model whereby different dynein-MT interactions are used for specific spindle-positioning tasks in the one-cell embryo.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207