MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3173335618 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.28.450200

Biophysical Models of PAR Cluster Transport by Cortical Flow in <i>C. elegans</i> Early Embryogenesis

2021· preprint· en· W3173335618 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cole Zmurchok, William R. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCluster analysisBiological systemScalar (mathematics)Caenorhabditis elegansPolarity (international relations)Cluster (spacecraft)Flow (mathematics)PhysicsComputer scienceStatistical physicsBiologyMathematicsMechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The clustering of membrane-bound proteins facilitates their transport by cortical actin flow in early Caenorhabditis elegans embryo cell polarity. PAR-3 clustering is critical for this process, yet the bio-physical processes that couple protein clusters to cortical flow remain unknown. We develop a discrete, stochastic agent-based model of protein clustering and test four hypothetical models for how clusters may interact with the flow. Results show that the canonical way to assess transport characteristics from single particle tracking data used thus far in this area, the Péclet number, is insufficient to distinguish these hypotheses and that all models can account for transport characteristics quantified by this measure. However, using this model, we demonstrate that these different cluster-cortex interactions may be distinguished using a different metric, namely, the scalar projection of cluster displacement on to the flow displacement vector. Our results thus provide a testable way to use existing single particle tracking data to test how endogenous protein clusters may interact with the cortical flow to localize during polarity establishment. To facilitate this investigation, we also develop both improved simulation and semi-analytic methodologies to quantify motion summary statistics (e.g., Péclet number and scalar projection) for these stochastic models as a function of biophysical parameters.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→