MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472197831 · doi:10.1534/g3.116.028886

Partial Functional Diversification of<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>Septin Genes<i>Sep2</i>and<i>Sep5</i>

2016· article· en· W2472197831 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan S. O’Neill, Denise V. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Reproductive Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDrosophila melanogasterDiversification (marketing strategy)GeneSeptinDrosophila (subgenus)BiologyGeneticsBusinessCellCytokinesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The septin family of hetero-oligomeric complex-forming proteins can be divided into subgroups, and subgroup members are interchangeable at specific positions in the septin complex. Drosophila melanogaster has five septin genes, including the two SEPT6 subgroup members Sep2 and Sep5 We previously found that Sep2 has a unique function in oogenesis, which is not performed by Sep5 Here, we find that Sep2 is uniquely required for follicle cell encapsulation of female germline cysts, and that Sep2 and Sep5 are redundant for follicle cell proliferation. The five D. melanogaster septins localize similarly in oogenesis, including as rings flanking the germline ring canals. Pnut fails to localize in Sep5; Sep2 double mutant follicle cells, indicating that septin complexes fail to form in the absence of both Sep2 and Sep5. We also find that mutations in septins enhance the mutant phenotype of bazooka, a key component in the establishment of cell polarity, suggesting a link between septin function and cell polarity. Overall, this work suggests that Sep5 has undergone partial loss of ancestral protein function, and demonstrates redundant and unique functions of septins.

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 score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicPlant Reproductive BiologyFrench-language works237,207