ArticleWorm
Why motor proteins team up - Intraflagellar transport in C. elegans cilia.
Article in Worm. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraflagellar transport: mechanisms of motor action, cooperation, and cargo delivery.The FEBS journal · 2017Review
- Ciliary entry of KIF17 is dependent on its binding to the IFT-B complex via IFT46-IFT56 as well as on its nuclear localization signal.Molecular biology of the cell · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inside the cell, vital processes such as cell division and intracellular transport are driven by the concerted action of different molecular motor proteins. In C. elegans chemosensory cilia, 2 kinesin-2 family motor proteins, kinesin-II and OSM-3, team up to drive intraflagellar transport (IFT) in the anterograde direction, from base to tip, whereas IFT dynein hitchhikes toward the tip and subsequently drives IFT in the opposite, retrograde direction, thereby recycling both kinesins. While it is evident that at least a retrograde and an anterograde motor are necessary to drive IFT, it has remained puzzling why 2 same-polarity kinesins are employed. Recently, we addressed this question by combining advanced genome-engineering tools with ultrasensitive, quantitative fluorescence microscopy to study IFT with single-molecule sensitivity.(1,2) Using this combination of approaches, we uncovered a differentiation in kinesin-2 function, in which the slower kinesin-II operates as an 'importer', loading IFT trains into the cilium before gradually handing them over to the faster OSM-3. OSM-3 subsequently acts as a long-range 'transporter', driving the IFT trains toward the tip. The two kinesin-2 motors combine their unique motility properties to achieve something neither motor can achieve on its own; that is to optimize the amount of cargo inside the cilium. In this commentary, we provide detailed insight into the rationale behind our research approach and comment on our recent findings. Moreover, we discuss the role of IFT dynein and provide an outlook on future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.