A Spatiotemporal Reconstruction of the <i>C. elegans</i> Pharyngeal Cuticle Reveals a Structure Rich in Phase-Separating Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Roughly 4.5 million species of ecdysozoan animals repeatedly shed their old cuticle and construct a new one underneath to accommodate growth. How cuticles are constructed is not well understood. Here, we systematically mine gene expression datasets to uncover the spatiotemporal blueprint for how the chitin-based pharyngeal cuticle of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is built. We demonstrate that the blueprint correctly predicts expression patterns and functional relevance to cuticle development. We find that as larvae prepare to molt, catabolic enzymes are upregulated and the genes that encode chitin synthase, chitin cross-linkers, and homologs of amyloid regulators subsequently peak in expression. 48% of the gene products secreted during the molt are predicted to be intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs), many of which belong to four distinct families that are expressed in overlapping waves. These include the IDPAs, IDPBs, and IDPCs that are introduced for the first time here. We find that all four families have sequence properties known to drive phase separation and show in vitro phase separation for one of these proteins. This systematic analysis reveals the massive contribution that IDPs make to the cuticle and highlights how reversibly phase-separating materials may facilitate cuticle disassembly and reassembly during the molt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".