MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972629934 · doi:10.1242/dev.176339

Slik phosphorylation of talin T152 is crucial for proper talin recruitment and maintenance of muscle attachment in <i>Drosophila</i>

2019· article· en· W2972629934 on OpenAlexafffund
Anja Katzemich, Jenny Yanyan Long, Vincent Panneton, Lucas A. B. Fisher, David R. Hipfner, Frieder Schöck

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCell biologyBiologyPhosphorylationFocal adhesionActin cytoskeletonActinIntegrinCytoskeletonReceptorBiochemistryCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Talin is the major scaffold protein linking integrin receptors with the actin cytoskeleton. In Drosophila, extended talin generates a stable link between the sarcomeric cytoskeleton and the tendon matrix at muscle attachment sites. Here we identify phosphorylation sites on Drosophila talin by mass spectrometry. Talin is phosphorylated in late embryogenesis when muscles differentiate, especially on T152 in the exposed loop of the F1 domain of the talin head. Localization of talin-T150/T152A is reduced at muscle attachment sites and can only partially rescue muscle attachment compared to wild type talin. We also identify Slik as the kinase phosphorylating talin at T152. Slik localizes to muscle attachment sites, and the absence of Slik reduces the localization of talin at muscle attachment sites causing phenotypes similar to talin-T150/T152A. Thus, our results demonstrate that talin phosphorylation by Slik plays an important role in fine-tuning talin recruitment to integrin adhesion sites and maintaining muscle attachment.

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)0.000
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207