Modeling cell intercalation during<i>Drosophila</i>germband extension
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Germband extension during Drosophila development is primarily driven by cell intercalation, which involves three key components: planar cell polarity, anisotropic myosin contractile forces on cellular junctions, and cellular deformation and movement. Prior experimental work probed each of these factors in depth, but the connection between them remains unclear. This paper presents an integrated chemomechanical model that combines the three factors into a coherent mathematical framework for studying cell intercalation in the germband tissue. The model produces the planar cell polarization of key proteins, including Rho-kinase, Bazooka and myosin, the development of anisotropic contractile forces, and subsequent cell deformation and rearrangement. Cell intercalation occurs through T1 transitions among four neighboring cells and rosettes involving six cells. Such six-cell rosettes entail stronger myosin-based contractile forces, and on average produce a moderately larger amount of germband extension than the T1 transitions. The resolution of T1 and rosettes is driven by contractile forces on junctions anterior and posterior to the assembly as well as the pulling force of the medial myosin in the anterior and posterior cells. The global stretching due to posterior midgut invagination also plays a minor role. These model predictions are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations.
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.
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 it