Regulation and Assembly of Actomyosin Contractile Rings in Cytokinesis and Cell Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Cytokinesis and single‐cell wound repair both involve contractile assemblies of filamentous actin (F‐actin) and myosin II organized into characteristic ring‐like arrays. The assembly of these actomyosin contractile rings (CRs) is specified spatially and temporally by small Rho GTPases, which trigger local actin polymerization and myosin II contractility via a variety of downstream effectors. We now have a much clearer view of the Rho GTPase signaling cascade that leads to the formation of CRs, but some factors involved in CR positioning, assembly, and function remain poorly understood. Recent studies show that this regulation is multifactorial and goes beyond the long‐established Ca 2+ ‐dependent processes. There is substantial evidence that the Ca 2+ ‐independent changes in cell shape, tension, and plasma membrane composition that characterize cytokinesis and single‐cell wound repair also regulate CR formation. Elucidating the regulation and mechanistic properties of CRs is important to our understanding of basic cell biology and holds potential for therapeutic applications in human disease. In this review, we present a primer on the factors influencing and regulating CR positioning, assembly, and contraction as they occur in a variety of cytokinetic and single‐cell wound repair models. Anat Rec, 301:2051–2066, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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".