Interaction Between Actin and Microtubules During Plant Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic interaction between actin filaments (AFs) and microtubules (MTs) plays a crucial role in regulating key developmental and physiological processes in plant cells, particularly in the formation of specialized cell types with distinct shapes and functions, such as pollen tubes, trichomes, and leaf epidermal cells. These cytoskeletal components are organized into specialized structures, and their coordination is tightly regulated by molecular mechanisms, including ROP signaling pathways that control actin- and microtubule-binding proteins. Additionally, bifunctional proteins such as kinesins and myosins, which interact with both AFs and MTs, further facilitate the coordination of cytoskeletal activities, thus regulating cell morphology. Recent advances in understanding of stomatal development (Arabidopsis and maize), moss protonemal cells, and xylem differentiation have provided novel mechanistic insights into cytoskeletal crosstalk. This review, based on recent discoveries, focuses on the role of actin-microtubule interactions in the formation of new cell types, vesicular transport, and cell division. Furthermore, we highlight the molecular mechanisms that govern these interactions and propose future research directions in this field.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".