MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220917510 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009400

The correlation between cell and nucleus size is explained by an eukaryotic cell growth model

2022· article· en· W4220917510 on OpenAlexaff
Yufei Wu, Adrian F. Pegoraro, David A. Weitz, Paul A. Janmey, Sean X. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityDirectorate for EngineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNucleoplasmRibosome biogenesisCytoplasmCell biologyRibosomeCell growthBiologyNucleusCellCell divisionCell cycleCell nucleusChemistryNucleolusRNABiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In eukaryotes, the cell volume is observed to be strongly correlated with the nuclear volume. The slope of this correlation depends on the cell type, growth condition, and the physical environment of the cell. We develop a computational model of cell growth and proteome increase, incorporating the kinetics of amino acid import, protein/ribosome synthesis and degradation, and active transport of proteins between the cytoplasm and the nucleoplasm. We also include a simple model of ribosome biogenesis and assembly. Results show that the cell volume is tightly correlated with the nuclear volume, and the cytoplasm-nucleoplasm transport rates strongly influence the cell growth rate as well as the cell/nucleus volume ratio (C/N ratio). Ribosome assembly and the ratio of ribosomal proteins to mature ribosomes also influence the cell volume and the cell growth rate. We find that in order to regulate the cell growth rate and the cell/nucleus volume ratio, the cell must optimally control groups of kinetic and transport parameters together, which could explain the quantitative roles of canonical growth pathways. Finally, although not explicitly demonstrated in this work, we point out that it is possible to construct a detailed proteome distribution using our model and RNAseq data, provided that a quantitative cell division mechanism is known.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations75
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207