MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302009041 · doi:10.1103/physreve.107.054408

Models of vimentin organization under actin-driven transport

2023· article· en· W4302009041 on OpenAlexafffund
Cécile Leduc, Sandrine Etienne‐Manneville, Stéphanie Portet

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLigue Contre le CancerAgence Nationale de la RecherchePacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsVimentinActinCell biologyComputer scienceBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intermediate filaments form an essential structural network, spread throughout the cytoplasm, and play a key role in cell mechanics, intracellular organization, and molecular signaling. The maintenance of the network and its adaptation to the cell's dynamic behavior relies on several mechanisms implicating cytoskeletal crosstalk which are not fully understood. Mathematical modeling allows us to compare several biologically realistic scenarios to help us interpret experimental data. In this study we observe and model the dynamics of the vimentin intermediate filaments in single glial cells seeded on circular micropatterns following microtubule disruption by nocodazole treatment. In these conditions, the vimentin filaments move towards the cell center and accumulate before eventually reaching a steady state. In the absence of microtubule-driven transport, the motion of the vimentin network is primarily driven by actin-related mechanisms. To model these experimental findings, we hypothesize that vimentin may exist in two states, mobile and immobile, and switch between the states at unknown (either constant or nonconstant) rates. Mobile vimentin is assumed to advect with either constant or nonconstant velocity. We introduce several biologically realistic scenarios using this set of assumptions. For each scenario, we use differential evolution to find the best parameter sets resulting in a solution that most closely matches the experimental data and then the assumptions are evaluated using the Akaike information criterion. This modeling approach allows us to conclude that our experimental data are best explained by a spatially dependent trapping of intermediate filaments or a spatially dependent speed of actin-dependent transport.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207