Repellent and Attractant Guidance Cues Initiate Cell Migration by Distinct Rear-Driven and Front-Driven Cytoskeletal Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attractive and repulsive cell guidance is essential for animal life and important in disease. Cell migration toward attractants dominates studies [1-8], but migration away from repellents is important in biology yet relatively little studied [5, 9, 10]. It is widely held that cells initiate migration by protrusion of their front [11-15], yet this has not been explicitly tested for cell guidance because cell margin displacement at opposite ends of the cell has not been distinguished for any cue. We argue that protrusion of the front, retraction of the rear, or both together could in principle break cell symmetry and start migration in response to guidance cues [16]. Here, we find in the Dictyostelium model [6] that an attractant-cAMP-breaks symmetry by causing protrusion of the front of the cell, whereas its repellent analog-8CPT-breaks symmetry by causing retraction of the rear. Protrusion of the front of these cells in response to cAMP starts with local actin filament assembly, while the delayed retraction of the rear is independent of both myosin II polarization and of motor-based contractility. On the contrary, myosin II accumulates locally in the rear of the cell in response to 8CPT, anticipating retraction and required for it, while local actin assembly is delayed and couples to delayed protrusion at the front. These data reveal an important new concept in the understanding of cell guidance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".