MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410975633 · doi:10.1093/jxb/eraf241

Nuclear positioning and cell division site specification in plants

2025· article· en· W4410975633 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivia S Hazelwood, Jessica Orr, M. Arif Ashraf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Botany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDepartment of Botany, University of CalcuttaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOrganelleCell divisionNucleusBiologyMitosisDivision (mathematics)Eukaryotic cellCell nucleusCellCell fate determinationFunction (biology)Cell biologyComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nucleus is a signature organelle present in eukaryotic cells, from plants to humans. Like any other organelle in the cell, the nucleus is dynamic and constantly moving. Nuclear movement can be directional depending on the cell type and its spatial and temporal function in the cell. During asymmetric cell division, the pre-mitotic nucleus moves directionally. A long-standing question in biology has been whether the nucleus determines the future cell division site, or if the future cell division site dictates the nuclear position. Plant cell biologists have done a fantastic job in answering this question over the years using classic genetic and cell biology approaches. Unfortunately, many classic experiments are fundamental for our understanding and not highlighted in recent literature. In this review, we cover classic experiments performed without novel molecular tools, and advance to recent experiments leveraging molecular and genetic tools. We provide a roadmap to understanding the importance of nuclear position in deciding the future cell division site.

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 score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BotanySame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207