Requirement for and polarized localization of integrin proteins during<i>Drosophila</i>wound closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wound reepithelialization is an evolutionarily conserved process in which skin cells migrate as sheets to heal the breach and is critical to prevent infection but impaired in chronic wounds. Integrin heterodimers mediate attachment between epithelia and underlying extracellular matrix and also act in large signaling complexes. The complexity of the mammalian wound environment and evident redundancy among integrins has impeded determination of their specific contributions to reepithelialization. Taking advantage of the genetic tools and smaller number of integrins in Drosophila, we undertook a systematic in vivo analysis of integrin requirements in the reepithelialization of skin wounds in the larva. We identify αPS2-βPS and αPS3-βPS as the crucial integrin dimers and talin as the only integrin adhesion component required for reepithelialization. The integrins rapidly accumulate in a JNK-dependent manner in a few rows of cells surrounding a wound. Intriguingly, the integrins localize to the distal margin in these cells, instead of the frontal or lamellipodial distribution expected for proteins providing traction and recruit nonmuscle myosin II to the same location. These findings indicate that signaling roles of integrins may be important for epithelial polarization around wounds and lay the groundwork for using Drosophila to better understand integrin contributions to reepithelialization.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".