MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294225679 · doi:10.1242/jcs.260021

The atypical small GTPase RABL3 interacts with RAB11 to regulate early ciliogenesis in human cells

2022· article· en· W4294225679 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tetsuo Kobayashi, Tatsuya Ikeda, Reo Ota, Takafumi Yasukawa, Hiroshi Itoh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeDaiichi Sankyo Foundation of Life ScienceJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceFoundation for Promotion of Cancer ResearchMochida Memorial Foundation for Medical and Pharmaceutical ResearchYork UniversitySGH FoundationNara Institute of Science and TechnologyFoundation for Nara Institute of Science and TechnologyKurata Memorial Hitachi Science and Technology FoundationTakeda Science Foundation
KeywordsCiliogenesisBiologySmall GTPaseCell biologyGTPaseCiliumSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary cilia are near-ubiquitously assembled on cells in the human body, and are broadly associated with genetic diseases and cancers. In the early stage of ciliogenesis, the ciliary vesicle (CV) is formed on the mother centriole, which nucleates the primary cilium. However, the regulatory mechanisms underlying CV formation have not yet been fully elucidated. Here, we found that the atypical small GTPase RAB-like 3 (RABL3) is necessary to assemble primary cilia in human cells. RABL3 directly interacts with RAB11 (herein referring to both RAB11A and RAB11B), which is involved in CV formation. RABL3 localizes around the centrosome during early ciliogenesis, reminiscent of RAB11 dynamics. Furthermore, RABL3 positively controls the CV formation like RAB11. These findings suggest that RABL3 plays an important role, in cooperation with RAB11, in CV formation during early ciliogenesis.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207