Spindle organization in three dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During cell division, chromosome segregation takes place on bipolar, microtubulebased spindles. Here, C. elegans is used to analyze spindle organization under both mitotic and meiotic conditions. First, the role of SAS-4 in organizing centrosome structure was analyzed. Partial depletion of SAS-4 in early embryos results in structurally defective centrioles. The study of this protein sheds light on the poorly understood role of the centrioles in dictating centrosome size. Second, the ultrastructure of wild-type mitotic spindle components was analyzed by electron tomography. This 3-D analysis reveals morphologically distinct microtubule end morphologies in the mitotic spindle pole. These results have structural implications for models of microtubule interactions with centrosomes Third, spindle assembly was studied in female meiosis. Specifically, the role of the microtubule severing complex katanin in spindle organization was analyzed. Electron tomography reveals fragmentation of spindle microtubules and suggests a novel katanin-dependent mechanism of meiotic spindle assembly. In this model, relatively long microtubules seen near the meiotic chromatin are converted into numerous short fragments, thus increasing the total number of polymers in an acentrosomal environment. Taken together, these results provide novel insights into the three-dimensional organization of microtubules during spindle assembly.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".