MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954897426 · doi:10.1242/jcs.232330

Sumoylation regulates protein dynamics during meiotic chromosome segregation in <i>C. elegans</i> oocytes

2019· article· en· W2954897426 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Federico Pelisch, Laura Bel Borja, Ellis Jaffray, Ronald T. Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research Council CanadaCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsAnaphaseBiologyCell biologyChromosome segregationSUMO proteinMeiosisMetaphaseGeneticsChromosomeUbiquitin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Oocyte meiotic spindles in most species lack centrosomes and the mechanisms that underlie faithful chromosome segregation in acentrosomal meiotic spindles are not well understood. In C. elegans oocytes, spindle microtubules exert a poleward force on chromosomes that is dependent on the microtubule-stabilising protein CLS-2, the orthologue of the mammalian CLASP proteins. The checkpoint kinase BUB-1 and CLS-2 localise in the central spindle and display a dynamic localisation pattern throughout anaphase, but the signals regulating their anaphase-specific localisation remains unknown. We have shown previously that SUMO regulates BUB-1 localisation during metaphase I. Here, we found that SUMO modification of BUB-1 is regulated by the SUMO E3 ligase GEI-17 and the SUMO protease ULP-1. SUMO and GEI-17 are required for BUB-1 localisation between segregating chromosomes during early anaphase I. We also show that CLS-2 is subject to SUMO-mediated regulation; CLS-2 precociously localises in the midbivalent when either SUMO or GEI-17 are depleted. Overall, we provide evidence for a novel, SUMO-mediated control of protein dynamics during early anaphase I in oocytes.

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 score0.369

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207