MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402294569 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn6858

Excitable Rho dynamics control cell shape and motility by sequentially activating ERM proteins and actomyosin contractility

2024· article· en· W4402294569 on OpenAlexaff
Seph Marshall-Burghardt, Rodrigo A. Migueles‐Ramírez, Qiyao Lin, Nada El Baba, Rayan Saada, Mustakim Umar, Kian Mavalwala, Arnold Hayer

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell biologyRadixinMotilityActinCytoskeletonContractilityMoesinEzrinMyosinRegulatorBiologyCellMicrofilamentChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migration of endothelial and many other cells requires spatiotemporal regulation of protrusive and contractile cytoskeletal rearrangements that drive local cell shape changes. Unexpectedly, the small GTPase Rho, a crucial regulator of cell movement, has been reported to be active in both local cell protrusions and retractions, raising the question of how Rho activity can coordinate cell migration. Here, we show that Rho activity is absent in local protrusions and active during retractions. During retractions, Rho rapidly activated ezrin-radixin-moesin proteins (ERMs) to increase actin-membrane attachment, and, with a delay, nonmuscle myosin 2 (NM2). Rho activity was excitable, with NM2 acting as a slow negative feedback regulator. Strikingly, inhibition of SLK/LOK kinases, through which Rho activates ERMs, caused elongated cell morphologies, impaired Rho-induced cell contractions, and reverted Rho-induced blebbing. Together, our study demonstrates that Rho activity drives retractions by sequentially enhancing ERM-mediated actin-membrane attachment for force transmission and NM2-dependent contractility.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207