CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Visualization of the Peroxisomal Compartment in Living Mammalian Cells: Dynamic Behavior and Association with Microtubules

Wiemer, Erik A.C., Wenzel, Thibaut, Deerinck, Thomas J., Ellisman, Mark H., Subramani, Suresh·1997·The Journal of Cell Biology
DOI 10.1083/jcb.136.1.71PMC PMC2132450
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peroxisomes in living CV1 cells were visualized by targeting the green fluorescent protein (GFP) to this subcellular compartment through the addition of a COOH-terminal peroxisomal targeting signal 1 (GFP–PTS1). The organelle dynamics were examined and analyzed using time-lapse confocal laser scanning microscopy. Two types of movement could be distinguished: a relatively slow, random, vibration-like movement displayed by the majority (∼95%) of the peroxisomes, and a saltatory, fast directional movement displayed by a small subset (∼5%) of the peroxisomes. In the latter instance, peak velocities up to 0.75 μm/s and sustained directional velocities up to 0.45 μm/s over 11.5 μm were recorded. Only the directional type of motion appeared to be energy dependent, whereas the vibrational movement continued even after the cells were depleted of energy. Treatment of cells, transiently expressing GFP–PTS1, with microtubule-destabilizing agents such as nocodazole, vinblastine, and demecolcine clearly altered peroxisome morphology and subcellular distribution and blocked the directional movement. In contrast, the microtubule-stabilizing compound paclitaxel, or the microfilament-destabilizing drugs cytochalasin B or D, did not exert these effects. High resolution confocal analysis of cells expressing GFP–PTS1 and stained with anti-tubulin antibodies revealed that many peroxisomes were associated with microtubules. The GFP–PTS1–labeled peroxisomes were found to distribute themselves in a stochastic, rather than ordered, manner to daughter cells at the time of mitosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1083/jcb.136.1.71

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 GFP–PTS1 expression construct. A mutant version (S65T) of the GFP cDNA was cloned into the vector pcDNA3 as described in Materials and Methods. The resulting plasmids either expressed GFP (pGFP) alone or GFP onto which a peroxisomal type I targeting signal (Ser-Lys-Leu-COOH) was fused at its COOH-terminal end (pGFP-PTS1). Depicted is pGFP-PTS1 containing the GFP–PTS1 construct under control of the human cytomegalovirus intermediate early promoter/enhancer region (pCMV). BGH poly A, bovine growth hormone polyadenylation signal; SV40 O/P, SV40 origin and early promoter; NEO r, neomycin-resistance gene; SV40 poly A, SV40 T-antigen polyadenylation signal; Col E1, col E1 origin of replication; AMP r, β-lactamase gene.
Figure 1 GFP–PTS1 expression construct. A mutant version (S65T) of the GFP cDNA was cloned into the vector pcDNA3 as described in Materials and Methods. The resulting plasmids either expressed GFP (pGFP) alone or GFP onto which a peroxisomal type I targeting signal (Ser-Lys-Leu-COOH) was fused at its COOH-terminal end (pGFP-PTS1). Depicted is pGFP-PTS1 containing the GFP–PTS1 construct under control of the human cytomegalovirus intermediate early promoter/enhancer region (pCMV). BGH poly A, bovine growth hormone polyadenylation signal; SV40 O/P, SV40 origin and early promoter; NEO r, neomycin-resistance gene; SV40 poly A, SV40 T-antigen polyadenylation signal; Col E1, col E1 origin of replication; AMP r, β-lactamase gene.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Subcellular localization of GFP and GFP–PTS1 in CV1 cells. CV1 cells were cultured on coverslips, transfected with pGFP and pGFP-PTS1. After 48 h the cells were examined directly for GFP–PTS1 (A) or GFP (B) expression. Alternatively, pGFP-PTS1– transfected CV1 cells were fixed, permeabilized, and processed for immunofluorescence. In a double-labeling experiment, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti–PMP70, and subsequently with goat anti–rabbit IgG conjugated to rhodamine. The cells were monitored for the subcellular localization of GFP–PTS1 (C) in the FITC channel and PMP70 (D) in the rhodamine channel. Bar, 10 μm.
Figure 2 Subcellular localization of GFP and GFP–PTS1 in CV1 cells. CV1 cells were cultured on coverslips, transfected with pGFP and pGFP-PTS1. After 48 h the cells were examined directly for GFP–PTS1 (A) or GFP (B) expression. Alternatively, pGFP-PTS1– transfected CV1 cells were fixed, permeabilized, and processed for immunofluorescence. In a double-labeling experiment, the cells were incubated with rabbit anti–PMP70, and subsequently with goat anti–rabbit IgG conjugated to rhodamine. The cells were monitored for the subcellular localization of GFP–PTS1 (C) in the FITC channel and PMP70 (D) in the rhodamine channel. Bar, 10 μm.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Time-lapse motion analysis of the dynamics of peroxisomes in living CV1 cells expressing GFP–PTS1. A representative single cell was selected, and single-frame confocal images were recorded at 6.4-s intervals for a total of 500 frames. 20 consecutive frames were chosen for motion analysis. (A) Three confocal images from the series are shown at time = 0 (frame 001), time = 64 s (frame 010), and time = 128 s (frame 020). Most peroxisomes displayed a slow, random movement within a limited space, leaving their overall distribution relatively unchanged after ∼2 min. Bar, 10 μm. (B) Plot of the peak velocities of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) observed over 20 consecutive frames revealed two distinct types of motion. The majority (95%) exhibited a localized, random type of Brownian motion with peak velocities of <0.2 μm/s. A smaller number (∼5%) exhibited a faster motion characterized by peak velocities of >0.2 μm/s and as great as 0.68 μm/s. (C) Plot of the mean average velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes over 20 consecutive frames also showed two distinct types of motion. The majority exhibited a localized, random type of Brownian motion with an average velocity of <0.05 μm/s, while the faster moving peroxisomes displayed an average velocity of >0.05 μm/s. (D) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative individual peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in C. A–E exhibited very little net displacement and were characteristic of the majority of peroxisomes. Peroxisome F exhibited sporadic motion, G was relatively stationary for several frames before exhibiting rapid directional motion, and H had a more continuous, rapid directional motion over the time course (1 pixel = 0.13 μm).
Figure 3 Time-lapse motion analysis of the dynamics of peroxisomes in living CV1 cells expressing GFP–PTS1. A representative single cell was selected, and single-frame confocal images were recorded at 6.4-s intervals for a total of 500 frames. 20 consecutive frames were chosen for motion analysis. (A) Three confocal images from the series are shown at time = 0 (frame 001), time = 64 s (frame 010), and time = 128 s (frame 020). Most peroxisomes displayed a slow, random movement within a limited space, leaving their overall distribution relatively unchanged after ∼2 min. Bar, 10 μm. (B) Plot of the peak velocities of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) observed over 20 consecutive frames revealed two distinct types of motion. The majority (95%) exhibited a localized, random type of Brownian motion with peak velocities of <0.2 μm/s. A smaller number (∼5%) exhibited a faster motion characterized by peak velocities of >0.2 μm/s and as great as 0.68 μm/s. (C) Plot of the mean average velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes over 20 consecutive frames also showed two distinct types of motion. The majority exhibited a localized, random type of Brownian motion with an average velocity of <0.05 μm/s, while the faster moving peroxisomes displayed an average velocity of >0.05 μm/s. (D) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative individual peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in C. A–E exhibited very little net displacement and were characteristic of the majority of peroxisomes. Peroxisome F exhibited sporadic motion, G was relatively stationary for several frames before exhibiting rapid directional motion, and H had a more continuous, rapid directional motion over the time course (1 pixel = 0.13 μm).CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Time-lapse analysis of the effects of paclitaxel and nocodazole on the dynamics of peroxisomes in living CV1 cells expressing GFP–PTS1. Representative single cells were selected and confocal images were taken at 6.4-s intervals for a total of 500 frames. 20 frames for each condition were chosen for motion analysis. (A) Three confocal images of a cell treated with paclitaxel at time = 0 (frame 001), time = 64 s (frame 010), and time = 128 s (frame 020) are shown. The overall distribution of peroxisomes was similar to that in normal cells. (B) Plot of the peak velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) over 20 consecutive frames appeared similar to that found in normal cells (Fig. 3 B). (C) Plot of the mean average velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes over 20 consecutive frames appeared similar to that found in normal cells (Fig. 3 C). (D) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in C. A–D were relatively motionless, while E and F exhibited sporadic motion and G and H exhibited more continuous rapid motion (1 pixel = 0.13 μm). The average velocities and mean changes in position were similar to those found in normal cells (Fig. 3 D). (E) Three frames from a series as in A of a cell treated with nocodazole showed an abnormal clustering of peroxisomes. (F) Plot of the peak velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) over 20 consecutive frames appeared abnormal. All peroxisomes exhibited only a localized, random type of Brownian motion with none exceeding a peak velocity 0.2 μm/s. (G) Plot of the mean average velocity showed that only a few peroxisomes exceeded 0.05 μm/s. (H) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in G. None of the peroxisomes exhibited rapid motion or displacements >0.5 μm over the time course (1 pixel = 0.13 μm).
Figure 4 Time-lapse analysis of the effects of paclitaxel and nocodazole on the dynamics of peroxisomes in living CV1 cells expressing GFP–PTS1. Representative single cells were selected and confocal images were taken at 6.4-s intervals for a total of 500 frames. 20 frames for each condition were chosen for motion analysis. (A) Three confocal images of a cell treated with paclitaxel at time = 0 (frame 001), time = 64 s (frame 010), and time = 128 s (frame 020) are shown. The overall distribution of peroxisomes was similar to that in normal cells. (B) Plot of the peak velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) over 20 consecutive frames appeared similar to that found in normal cells (Fig. 3 B). (C) Plot of the mean average velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes over 20 consecutive frames appeared similar to that found in normal cells (Fig. 3 C). (D) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in C. A–D were relatively motionless, while E and F exhibited sporadic motion and G and H exhibited more continuous rapid motion (1 pixel = 0.13 μm). The average velocities and mean changes in position were similar to those found in normal cells (Fig. 3 D). (E) Three frames from a series as in A of a cell treated with nocodazole showed an abnormal clustering of peroxisomes. (F) Plot of the peak velocity of 85 individual peroxisomes (∼50% of the cell population) over 20 consecutive frames appeared abnormal. All peroxisomes exhibited only a localized, random type of Brownian motion with none exceeding a peak velocity 0.2 μm/s. (G) Plot of the mean average velocity showed that only a few peroxisomes exceeded 0.05 μm/s. (H) Vector diagram plot tracking the motion of eight representative peroxisomes (A–H) corresponding to those marked in G. None of the peroxisomes exhibited rapid motion or displacements >0.5 μm over the time course (1 pixel = 0.13 μm).CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 5 High resolution confocal analysis of the movement of individual peroxisomes. (A) Five frames (000–004) taken at 6.4-s intervals showed the rapid unidirectional movement of a single peroxisome (arrows). The peak velocity of this peroxisome was 0.75 μm/s with an average velocity measured over 11.5 μm of 0.45 μm/s. (B) 15 frames (000–014) taken at 6.4-s intervals showed the bidirectional movement of a single elongated peroxisome. In frames 001–006, a peroxisome could be seen making a rapid looping motion and coming to a complete stop (arrows). In frames 006 and 007, the long axis of the peroxisome was oriented in the vertical dimension. In frames 007–014, the same peroxisome reversed course and returned along the same path with a similar velocity (arrows). Bars, 10 μm.
Figure 5 High resolution confocal analysis of the movement of individual peroxisomes. (A) Five frames (000–004) taken at 6.4-s intervals showed the rapid unidirectional movement of a single peroxisome (arrows). The peak velocity of this peroxisome was 0.75 μm/s with an average velocity measured over 11.5 μm of 0.45 μm/s. (B) 15 frames (000–014) taken at 6.4-s intervals showed the bidirectional movement of a single elongated peroxisome. In frames 001–006, a peroxisome could be seen making a rapid looping motion and coming to a complete stop (arrows). In frames 006 and 007, the long axis of the peroxisome was oriented in the vertical dimension. In frames 007–014, the same peroxisome reversed course and returned along the same path with a similar velocity (arrows). Bars, 10 μm.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Relationship of peroxisomes to microtubules and peroxisomal distribution during mitosis. Triple fluorescence confocal imaging of CV1 cells expressing GFP in peroxisomes (green), propidium iodide staining of the nucleus (pseudo-colored blue), and immunolabeling of microtubules using mouse anti–β-tubulin followed by goat anti–mouse IgG-CY5 (pseudo-colored red). (A) Low power image of the overall distribution of peroxisomes related to microtubules. (B) Higher power image of the same cell showing the close association of many of the individual peroxisomes (arrows) with individual microtubules. (C) Low power image of cells at metaphase and anaphase stages of mitosis. (D) Higher power image of an individual cell during anaphase stage of mitosis showing the random distribution of peroxisomes. Bars, 10 μm.
Figure 6 Relationship of peroxisomes to microtubules and peroxisomal distribution during mitosis. Triple fluorescence confocal imaging of CV1 cells expressing GFP in peroxisomes (green), propidium iodide staining of the nucleus (pseudo-colored blue), and immunolabeling of microtubules using mouse anti–β-tubulin followed by goat anti–mouse IgG-CY5 (pseudo-colored red). (A) Low power image of the overall distribution of peroxisomes related to microtubules. (B) Higher power image of the same cell showing the close association of many of the individual peroxisomes (arrows) with individual microtubules. (C) Low power image of cells at metaphase and anaphase stages of mitosis. (D) Higher power image of an individual cell during anaphase stage of mitosis showing the random distribution of peroxisomes. Bars, 10 μm.CC BY-NC-SA · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Allan, 1994, Organelle movement. Dynactin: portrait of a dynein regulator, Curr Biol, 4, 1000, 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00225-6 · DOI
  2. Baumann, 1995, Microtubule-associated movement of mitochondria and small particles in Acanthamoeba castellanii., Cell Motil Cytoskeleton, 32, 305, 10.1002/cm.970320407 · DOI
  3. Birky, 1983, The partitioning of cytoplasmic organelles at cell division, Int Rev Cytol, 15, 49
  4. Cole, 1995, Organization of organelles and membrane traffic by microtubules, Curr Opin Cell Biol, 7, 55, 10.1016/0955-0674(95)80045-X · DOI
  5. Cubitt, 1995, Understanding, improving and using green fluorescent proteins, Trends Biochem Sci, 20, 448, 10.1016/S0968-0004(00)89099-4 · DOI
  6. Erdmann, 1994, The peroxisomal targeting signal of 3-oxoacyl-CoA thiolase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae., Yeast, 10, 935, 10.1002/yea.320100708 · DOI
  7. Faber, 1994, The methylotrophic yeast Hansenula polymorphacontains an inducible import pathway for peroxisomal matrix proteins with an N-terminal targeting signal (PTS2 proteins), Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 91, 12985, 10.1073/pnas.91.26.12985 · DOI
  8. Freed, 1970, The association of a class of saltatory movements with microtubules in cultured cells, J Cell Biol, 45, 334, 10.1083/jcb.45.2.334 · DOI
  9. Gietl, 1990, Glyoxysomal malate dehydrogenase from watermelon is synthesized with an amino-terminal transit peptide, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 87, 5773, 10.1073/pnas.87.15.5773 · DOI
  10. Glover, 1994, Mutagenesis of the amino targeting signal of Saccharomyces cerevisiae3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase reveals conserved amino acids required for import into peroxisomes in vivo, J Biol Chem, 269, 7558, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)37323-4 · DOI
  11. Gould, 1989, A conserved tripeptide sorts proteins to peroxisomes, J Cell Biol, 108, 1657, 10.1083/jcb.108.5.1657 · DOI
  12. Heuser, 1989, Mechanisms behind the organization of membranous organelles in cells, Curr Opin Cell Biol, 1, 98, 10.1016/S0955-0674(89)80044-4 · DOI
  13. Ho, 1989, Reclustering of scattered Golgi elements occurs along microtubules, Eur J Cell Biol, 48, 250
  14. Hollenbeck, 1990, Radial extension of macrophage tubular lysosomes supported by kinesin, Nature (Lond), 346, 864, 10.1038/346864a0 · DOI
  15. Kamijo, 1990, The 70kDa peroxisomal membrane protein is a member of the Mdr (P-glycoprotein)-related ATP-binding protein superfamily, J Biol Chem, 265, 4534, 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)39595-X · DOI · Paper page
  16. Keller, 1987, Firefly luciferase is targeted to peroxisomes in mammalian cells, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 84, 3264, 10.1073/pnas.84.10.3264 · DOI
  17. Keller, 1991, Evolutionary conservation of a microbody targeting signal that targets proteins to peroxisomes, glyoxysomes, and glycosomes, J Cell Biol, 114, 893, 10.1083/jcb.114.5.893 · DOI
  18. Kelly, 1990, Microtubules, membrane traffic, and cell organization, Cell, 61, 5, 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90206-T · DOI
  19. Lazarow, 1985, Biogenesis of peroxisomes, Annu Rev Cell Biol, 1, 489, 10.1146/annurev.cb.01.110185.002421 · DOI
  20. McDonald, 1990, The kinesin-like ncd protein of Drosophilais a minus end-directed microtubule motor, Cell, 63, 1159, 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90412-8 · DOI
  21. McNew, 1996, The targeting and assembly of peroxisomal proteins: some old rules do not apply, Trends Biochem Sci, 21, 54, 10.1016/S0968-0004(96)80181-2 · DOI
  22. Monosov, 1996, Labeling of peroxisomes with green fluorescent protein in living Pichia pastoriscells, J Histochem Cytochem, 44, 581, 10.1177/44.6.8666743 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Morris, 1995, Axonal transport of mitochondria along microtubules and F-actin in living vertebrate neurons, J Cell Biol, 131, 1315, 10.1083/jcb.131.5.1315 · DOI
  24. Osumi, 1991, Amino-terminal presequence of the precursor of peroxisomal 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase is a cleavable signal peptide for peroxisomal targeting, Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 181, 947, 10.1016/0006-291X(91)92028-I · DOI
  25. Rapp, 1996, Microtubule-based peroxisome movement, J Cell Sci, 109, 837, 10.1242/jcs.109.4.837 · DOI
  26. Rickard, 1996, CLIPs for organelle-microtubule interactions, Trends Cell Biol, 6, 1278, 10.1016/0962-8924(96)10017-9 · DOI
  27. Rizzuto, 1995, Chimeric green fluorescent protein as a tool for visualizing subcellular organelles in living cells, Curr Biol, 5, 635, 10.1016/S0960-9822(95)00128-X · DOI
  28. Schrader, 1996, Interaction of microtubules with peroxisomes. Tubular and spherical peroxisomes in HepG2 cells and their alterations induced by microtubule-active drugs, Eur J Cell Biol, 69, 24
  29. Simon, 1995, Actin-dependent mitochondrial motility in mitotic yeast and cell-free systems: identification of a motor activity on the mitochondrial surface, J Cell Biol, 130, 345, 10.1083/jcb.130.2.345 · DOI
  30. Soto, 1993, Serial section electron tomography: a method for three-dimensional reconstruction of large structures, Neuroimage, 1, 230, 10.1006/nimg.1994.1008 · DOI
  31. Subramani, 1993, Protein import into peroxisomes and biogenesis of the organelle, Annu Rev Cell Biol, 9, 445, 10.1146/annurev.cb.09.110193.002305 · DOI
  32. Swinkels, 1991, A novel, cleavable peroxisomal targeting signal at the amino-terminus of the rat 3-ketoacyl-CoA thiolase, EMBO (Eur Mol Biol Organ) J, 10, 3255, 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1991.tb04889.x · DOI
  33. Terasaki, 1986, Microtubules and the endoplasmic reticulum are highly interdependent structures, J Cell Biol, 103, 1557, 10.1083/jcb.103.4.1557 · DOI
  34. Thaler, 1996, Microtubules and microtubule motors: mechanisms of regulation, Int Rev Cytol, 164, 269, 10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62388-8 · DOI
  35. van den Bosch, 1992, Biochemistry of peroxisomes, Annu Rev Biochem, 61, 157, 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.001105 · DOI
  36. Wang, 1978, Functions of cytoplasmic fibers in intracellular movements in BHK-21 cells, J Cell Biol, 79, 708, 10.1083/jcb.79.3.708 · DOI
  37. Warren, 1996, Organelle inheritance, Cell, 84, 395, 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81284-2 · DOI
  38. Weisman, 1990, Mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiaethat block intervacuole vesicular traffic and vacuole division and segregation, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 87, 1076, 10.1073/pnas.87.3.1076 · DOI
  39. Wiemer, 1996, Isolation and characterization of Pas2p, a peroxisomal membrane protein essential for peroxisome biogenesis in the methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris., J Biol Chem, 271, 18973, 10.1074/jbc.271.31.18973 · DOI
  40. Yamamoto, 1987, Biogenesis of peroxisomes in regenerating rat liver. I. Sequential changes of catalase and urate oxidase detected by ultrastructural cytochemistry, Eur J Cell Biol, 43, 293

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wiemer, E. A. C., Wenzel, T., Deerinck, T. J., Ellisman, M. H., & Subramani, S.
Affiliations
*Department of Biology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0322; and ‡National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, Department of Neurosciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0608
Venue
The Journal of Cell Biology
Publisher
Rockefeller University Press
Published
1997-01-13
Volume
136
Issue
1
Pages
71-80
ISSN
  • 0021-9525
  • 1540-8140
DOI
10.1083/jcb.136.1.71
PMC
PMC2132450
Cited by
156
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review