Phagosome‐endoplasmic reticulum contacts: Kissing and not running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in phagocytosis has been the subject of debate for over a decade. Proteomic determinations and dynamic microscopy of live cells led to conflicting conclusions. Recent insights into the existence of a variety of membrane contact sites (MCS) may help reconcile the seemingly disparate views. Specifically, earlier results can be rationalized considering that the ER forms specialized MCS with nascent and maturing phagosomes, without undergoing fusion. The composition and function of documented ER-to-phagosome contact sites is described. In addition, we speculate about the possible existence of additional phagosomal contact sites, based on available knowledge of interactions between the ER and other endocytic compartments. The interaction between phagosomes and the ER has been the subject of debate. Earlier observations that led to the suggestion that the ER fuses with the phagosomal membrane can now be explained in the light of recent evidence that intimate contacts form between the two organelles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".