MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112903572 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009231

A Keller-Segel model for C elegans L1 aggregation

2021· preprint· en· W3112903572 on OpenAlexafffund
Leon Avery, Brian Ingalls, Catherine I. Dumur, Alexander B. Artyukhin

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMutantRange (aeronautics)Biological systemPhenotypeGenePartial differential equationIdentification (biology)BiophysicsBiologyChemistryMathematicsGeneticsEcologyMathematical analysisMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a mathematical model for the aggregation of starved first-stage C elegans larvae (L1s). We propose that starved L1s produce and respond chemotactically to two labile diffusible chemical signals, a short-range attractant and a longer range repellent. This model takes the mathematical form of three coupled partial differential equations, one that describes the movement of the worms and one for each of the chemical signals. Numerical solution of these equations produced a pattern of aggregates that resembled that of worm aggregates observed in experiments. We also describe the identification of a sensory receptor gene, srh-2, whose expression is induced under conditions that promote L1 aggregation. Worms whose srh-2 gene has been knocked out form irregularly shaped aggregates. Our model suggests this phenotype may be explained by the mutant worms slowing their movement more quickly than the wild type.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207