A microtubule bestiary: structural diversity in tubulin polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microtubules are long, slender polymers of αβ-tubulin found in all eukaryotic cells. Tubulins associate longitudinally to form protofilaments, and adjacent protofilaments associate laterally to form the microtubule. In the textbook view, microtubules are 1) composed of 13 protofilaments, 2) arranged in a radial array by the centrosome, and 3) built into the 9+2 axoneme. Although these canonical structures predominate in eukaryotes, microtubules with divergent protofilament numbers and higher-order microtubule assemblies have been discovered throughout the last century. Here we survey these noncanonical structures, from the 4-protofilament microtubules of Prosthecobacter to the 40-protofilament accessory microtubules of mantidfly sperm. We review the variety of protofilament numbers observed in different species, in different cells within the same species, and in different stages within the same cell. We describe the determinants of protofilament number, namely nucleation factors, tubulin isoforms, and posttranslational modifications. Finally, we speculate on the functional significance of these diverse polymers. Equipped with novel tubulin-purification tools, the field is now prepared to tackle the long-standing question of the evolutionary basis of microtubule structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".