Conflicting roles of cell geometry, microtubule deflection and orientation-dependent dynamic instability in cortical array organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The self-organization of cortical microtubule arrays within plant cells is an emergent phenomenon with important consequences for the synthesis of the cell wall, cell shape, and subsequently the structure of plants. Mathematical modelling and experiments have elucidated the underlying processes involved. There has been recent interest in the influence of geometric cues on array orientation, be it direct (cell shape) or indirect (tension in the membrane). However, the mechanical influence of membrane curvature on these elastic filaments has largely been ignored. A previous model was proposed to describe how the anchoring process may control the deflection of individual microtubules seeking to minimize bending on a cylindrical cell. We incorporate this process into a model of interacting microtubules and find the cell curvature influence to be significant: the array favours orientations parallel to the direction of elongation rather than the expected transverse direction. Even without elasticity, the geometry of large cells hinders robust microtubule organization. These results suggest the necessity of additional processes to overcome these factors. We propose an orientation-dependent catastrophe rate, hypothetically caused by cellulose microfibrils impeding microtubule polymerization. We find a combination of anchoring and impedance to be sufficient to generate transverse arrays despite the geometric influences. Significance Statement The organization of microtubule (MT) polymers into parallel arrays along the two-dimensional cortex of plant cells is crucial for directional cell growth and plant development. Despite decades of experimentation and more recent computational modelling, understanding the mechanisms that orient cortical MTs remains incomplete. With computational modelling, we have re-examined an assumption common to many models: that MTs grow along straight (geodesic) paths rather than minimizing bending. We model MT bending, and find a significant disruption of transverse MT ordering, especially in larger cells. We find that angle-dependent MT behaviour can counteract the effect of bending in certain contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".