Biomechanical properties of intermediate filaments: from tissues to single filaments and back
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".