MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388424863 · doi:10.26508/lsa.202302427

Enucleation of the <i>C. elegans</i> embryo revealed dynein-dependent spacing between microtubule asters

2023· article· en· W4388424863 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ken Fujii, Tomo Kondo, Akatsuki Kimura

Bibliographic record

VenueLife Science Alliance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsCentrosomeCentrosome cycleCell biologyBiologyMicrotubuleDyneinKinetochoreAstral microtubulesCaenorhabditis elegansDynactinGeneticsChromosomeCellCell cycleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intracellular positioning of the centrosome, a major microtubule-organizing center, is important for cellular functions. One of the features of centrosome positioning is the spacing between centrosomes; however, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. To characterize the spacing activity in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos, a genetic setup was developed to produce enucleated embryos. The centrosome was duplicated multiple times in the enucleated embryo, which enabled us to characterize the chromosome-independent spacing activity between sister and non-sister centrosome pairs. We found that the timely spacing depended on cytoplasmic dynein, and we propose a stoichiometric model of cortical and cytoplasmic pulling forces for the spacing between centrosomes. We also observed dynein-independent but non-muscle myosin II-dependent movement of centrosomes in the later cell cycle phase. The spacing mechanisms revealed in this study are expected to function between centrosomes in general, regardless of the presence of a chromosome/nucleus between them, including centrosome separation and spindle elongation.

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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLife Science AllianceSame topicMicrotubule and mitosis dynamicsFrench-language works237,207