right and in Rios paper in emboJ it is shown that there are also more MTs in those conditions! and mts are not disorganized but remarkably aligned.

and i am not convinced by the anchoring. i think few motors produce enough forces to pull them out.

all mts do not form radial asters, and most mts are not staight.

but all mts do not radiate isotropically from mtocs. and this is not controled by mtocs, is it?

Agree, it participates to the organization. it controls minus ends nucleation. But i can't see how it impacts mt shape and orientation. Once plus ends are gone, they are free. The regulation of their stability and force production along mts is the major organization process.

not sure we should keep the term "centre". First because nucleation might be dispersed (mostly in differentiated cells). Second because even when clustered the nucleators may not be localized at the cell center.

haha nico @minclab.bsky.social will love it

Magnifique. c'est inspirant cette façon de revisiter des processus que l'on croit bien connus (dans les faits) sous un angle different (leur logique).

did he tell you about the cell farts? this guy made plenty of astonishing discoveries.

we listened to it so many times in the lab! thank you Jimmy!

sorry about that. do they systematically inverse their position by rotating CW?

hahaha well chosen Sally!

no we don't. But we would be happy if you can sugges some.

yes it can happen. but not often

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

@ghinabadih.bsky.social and Laetitia Kurzawa from CytoMorphoLab concluded that "contractile forces direct the chiral swirling of cells".

What if one cell of the doublet prefer the counter-clockwise direction? The strongest imposes its bias.

www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

We found that it takes only two cells for the bias to take place.
Although now they are only 60% to chose the clockwise direction.