MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901206051 · doi:10.1242/jcs.225144

Direct binding of Talin to Rap1 is required for cell–ECM adhesion in <i>Drosophila</i>

2018· article· en· W2901206051 on OpenAlexafffund
Darius Camp, Amanda Haage, Veronika Solianova, William M. Castle, Qinyuan Xu, Emily Lostchuck, Benjamin T. Goult, Guy Tanentzapf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsBiologyRap1Cell biologyCell adhesionDrosophila (subgenus)AdhesionFocal adhesionCellGeneticsSignal transductionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Attachment of cells to the extracellular matrix (ECM) via integrins is essential for animal development and tissue maintenance. The cytoplasmic protein Talin (encoded by rhea in flies) is necessary for linking integrins to the cytoskeleton, and its recruitment is a key step in the assembly of the adhesion complex. However, the mechanisms that regulate Talin recruitment to sites of adhesion in vivo are still not well understood. Here, we show that Talin recruitment to, and maintenance at, sites of integrin-mediated adhesion requires a direct interaction between Talin and the GTPase Rap1. A mutation that blocks the direct binding of Talin to Rap1 abolished Talin recruitment to sites of adhesion and the resulting phenotype phenocopies that seen with null alleles of Talin. Moreover, we show that Rap1 activity modulates Talin recruitment to sites of adhesion via its direct binding to Talin. These results identify the direct Talin–Rap1 interaction as a key in vivo mechanism for controlling integrin-mediated cell–ECM adhesion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207