MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130862689 · doi:10.1242/dev.186106

Differential effects of commensal bacteria on progenitor cell adhesion, division symmetry and tumorigenesis in the <i>Drosophila</i> intestine

2021· article· en· W3130862689 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan Ferguson, Kristina Petkau, Min‐Jeong Shin, Anthony Galenza, David E. Fast, Edan Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsBiologyCarcinogenesisCell biologyDrosophila (subgenus)BacteriaProgenitorProgenitor cellCell divisionMicrobiologyCommensalismAdhesionCell adhesionCellGeneticsStem cellCancerGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Microbial factors influence homeostatic and oncogenic growth in the intestinal epithelium. However, we know little about immediate effects of commensal bacteria on stem cell division programs. In this study, we examined the effects of commensal Lactobacillus species on homeostatic and tumorigenic stem cell proliferation in the female Drosophila intestine. We identified Lactobacillus brevis as a potent stimulator of stem cell divisions. In a wild-type midgut, L.brevis activates growth regulatory pathways that drive stem cell divisions. In a Notch-deficient background, L.brevis-mediated proliferation causes rapid expansion of mutant progenitors, leading to accumulation of large, multi-layered tumors throughout the midgut. Mechanistically, we showed that L.brevis disrupts expression and subcellular distribution of progenitor cell integrins, supporting symmetric divisions that expand intestinal stem cell populations. Collectively, our data emphasize the impact of commensal microbes on division and maintenance of the intestinal progenitor compartment.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207