MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163010743 · doi:10.1093/molbev/mst110

Insights into the Origin of Metazoan Filopodia and Microvilli

2013· article· en· W2163010743 on OpenAlexafffund
Arnau Sebé-Pedrós, Pawel Burkhardt, Núria Sánchez-Pons, Stephen R. Fairclough, B. Franz Lang, Nicole King, Iñaki Ruiz‐Trillo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftJoint Genome InstituteMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónBroad Institute
KeywordsFilopodiaBiologyFascinCell biologyPseudopodiaActinMyosin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Filopodia are fine actin-based cellular projections used for both environmental sensing and cell motility, and they are essential organelles for metazoan cells. In this study, we reconstruct the origin of metazoan filopodia and microvilli. We first report on the evolutionary assembly of the filopodial molecular toolkit and show that homologs of many metazoan filopodial components, including fascin and myosin X, were already present in the unicellular or colonial progenitors of metazoans. Furthermore, we find that the actin crosslinking protein fascin localizes to filopodia-like structures and microvilli in the choanoflagellate Salpingoeca rosetta. In addition, homologs of filopodial genes in the holozoan Capsaspora owczarzaki are upregulated in filopodia-bearing cells relative to those that lack them. Therefore, our findings suggest that proteins essential for metazoan filopodia and microvilli are functionally conserved in unicellular and colonial holozoans and that the last common ancestor of metazoans bore a complex and specific filopodial machinery.

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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations93
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207