MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040427437 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101335

Temporal Coordination of Collective Migration and Lumen Formation by Antagonism between Two Nuclear Receptors

2020· article· en· W3040427437 on OpenAlexafffund
Xianping Wang, Heng Wang, Lin Liu, Sheng Li, Grégory Emery, Jiong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCell biologyMorphogenesisReceptorLumen (anatomy)BiologyCell migrationSecretionNuclear receptorTranscription factorCellEndocrinologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During development, cells undergo multiple, distinct morphogenetic processes to form a tissue or organ, but how their temporal order and time interval are determined remain poorly understood. Here we show that the nuclear receptors E75 and DHR3 regulate the temporal order and time interval between the collective migration and lumen formation of a coherent group of cells named border cells during Drosophila oogenesis. We show that E75, in response to ecdysone signaling, antagonizes the activity of DHR3 during border cell migration, and DHR3 is necessary and sufficient for the subsequent lumen formation that is critical for micropyle morphogenesis. DHR3's lumen-inducing function is mainly mediated through βFtz-f1, another nuclear receptor and transcription factor. Furthermore, both DHR3 and βFtz-f1 are required for chitin secretion into the lumen, whereas DHR3 is sufficient for chitin secretion. Lastly, DHR3 and βFtz-f1 suppress JNK signaling in the border cells to downregulate cell adhesion during lumen formation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207