MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166283261 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201212038

A Wee1 checkpoint inhibits anaphase onset

2013· article· en· W2166283261 on OpenAlexafffund
Noel Lianga, Elizabeth C. Williams, Erin K. Kennedy, Carole Doré, Sophie Pilon, Stéphanie L. Girard, Jean‐Sébastien Deneault, Adam D. Rudner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyAnaphaseWee1G2-M DNA damage checkpointCell biologyCell cycle checkpointGeneticsCell cycleCyclin-dependent kinase 1Apoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cdk1 drives both mitotic entry and the metaphase-to-anaphase transition. Past work has shown that Wee1 inhibition of Cdk1 blocks mitotic entry. Here we show that the budding yeast Wee1 kinase, Swe1, also restrains the metaphase-to-anaphase transition by preventing Cdk1 phosphorylation and activation of the mitotic form of the anaphase-promoting complex/cyclosome (APC(Cdc20)). Deletion of SWE1 or its opposing phosphatase MIH1 (the budding yeast cdc25(+)) altered the timing of anaphase onset, and activation of the Swe1-dependent morphogenesis checkpoint or overexpression of Swe1 blocked cells in metaphase with reduced APC activity in vivo and in vitro. The morphogenesis checkpoint also depended on Cdc55, a regulatory subunit of protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A). cdc55Δ checkpoint defects were rescued by mutating 12 Cdk1 phosphorylation sites on the APC, demonstrating that the APC is a target of this checkpoint. These data suggest a model in which stepwise activation of Cdk1 and inhibition of PP2A(Cdc55) triggers anaphase onset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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