MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154726357 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22677-0

Inhibition of polar actin assembly by astral microtubules is required for cytokinesis

2021· article· en· W3154726357 on OpenAlexafffund
Anan Chen, Luisa Ulloa Severino, Thomas C. Panagiotou, Trevor F. Moraes, Darren A. Yuen, Brigitte D. Lavoie, Andrew Wilde

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCIHR Skin Research Training CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCytokinesisCell biologyAstral microtubulesMicrotubuleActinBiophysicsChemistryBiologySpindle apparatusGeneticsCellCell division

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During cytokinesis, the actin cytoskeleton is partitioned into two spatially distinct actin isoform specific networks: a β-actin network that generates the equatorial contractile ring, and a γ-actin network that localizes to the cell cortex. Here we demonstrate that the opposing regulation of the β- and γ-actin networks is required for successful cytokinesis. While activation of the formin DIAPH3 at the cytokinetic furrow underlies β-actin filament production, we show that the γ-actin network is specifically depleted at the cell poles through the localized deactivation of the formin DIAPH1. During anaphase, CLIP170 is delivered by astral microtubules and displaces IQGAP1 from DIAPH1, leading to formin autoinhibition, a decrease in cortical stiffness and localized membrane blebbing. The contemporaneous production of a β-actin contractile ring at the cell equator and loss of γ-actin from the poles is required to generate a stable cytokinetic furrow and for the completion of cell division.

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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207