MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134083665 · doi:10.1007/s00285-021-01550-0

Spots, stripes, and spiral waves in models for static and motile cells

2021· article· en· W3134083665 on OpenAlexafffund
Yue Liu, Elisabeth G. Rens, Leah Edelstein‐Keshet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGTPaseCDC42MotilityCell polarityActinCytoskeletonBiologyCell biologyCell migrationActin cytoskeletonCellPhysicsBiophysicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The polarization and motility of eukaryotic cells depends on assembly and contraction of the actin cytoskeleton and its regulation by proteins called GTPases. The activity of GTPases causes assembly of filamentous actin (by GTPases Cdc42, Rac), resulting in protrusion of the cell edge. Mathematical models for GTPase dynamics address the spontaneous formation of patterns and nonuniform spatial distributions of such proteins in the cell. Here we revisit the wave-pinning model for GTPase-induced cell polarization, together with a number of extensions proposed in the literature. These include introduction of sources and sinks of active and inactive GTPase (by the group of A. Champneys), and negative feedback from F-actin to GTPase activity. We discuss these extensions singly and in combination, in 1D, and 2D static domains. We then show how the patterns that form (spots, waves, and spirals) interact with cell boundaries to create a variety of interesting and dynamic cell shapes and motion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical BiologySame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207