MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159518396 · doi:10.1002/bies.20514

Biomechanical properties of intermediate filaments: from tissues to single filaments and back

2006· review· en· W2159518396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermediate filamentMechanotransductionProtein filamentMicrofilamentCytoskeletonActinMechanobiologyMicrotubuleBiophysicsNanotechnologyBiologyMaterials scienceAnatomyCell biologyCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The animal cell cytoskeleton consists of three interconnected filament systems: actin-containing microfilaments (MFs), microtubules (MTs), and the lesser known intermediate filaments (IFs). All IF proteins share a common tripartite domain structure and the ability to assemble into 8-12 nm wide filaments. Electron microscopy data suggest that IFs are built according to a completely different plan from that of MFs and MTs. IFs are known to impart mechanical stability to cells and tissues but, until recently, the biomechanical properties of single IFs were unknown. However, with the discovery of naturally occurring micrometer-wide IF bundles and the development of new methodologies to mechanically probe single filaments, it is now possible to propose a more unified view of IF biomechanics. Unlike MFs and MTs, single IFs can now be described as flexible, extensible and tough, which has important implications for our understanding of cell and tissue mechanics. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms at play when IFs are deformed point toward a pivotal role for them in mechanotransduction.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.246 · 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