Which microtubule-dependent migration defects are conserved across mouse in utero perturbation/knockout models, biochemical or cultured-cell assays, and human iPSC-derived cortical organoids, and which require human-specific progenitors such as outer radial glia?
HUMAN MODEL MISMATCH
OPEN
gap_microtubule_human_model_translatability
Attached to:
Microtubule Apparatus Perturbation
Microtubule-Based Neuronal Motility Failure
The seed review emphasized rodent-versus-human cortical-development differences and the value of iPSC/organoid systems. For curation this should be treated as a human/model mismatch knowledge-gap category: mouse migration evidence can establish conserved mechanisms, but organoids or fetal-human data may be needed to decide whether outer-radial-glia timing, cleavage orientation, or human-specific transcript usage changes the pathograph for a specific disorder.
Proposed experiments:
Isogenic cortical-organoid migration rescue panel
Why do lesions in different tubulin isotype genes, all converging on this module, produce characteristically different cortical malformation patterns - TUBA1A lissencephaly, TUBB2A/TUBB2B polymicrogyria-like dysgyria, TUBB3 axon-guidance disease, TUBB microcephaly?
KNOWLEDGE GAP
OPEN
gap_tubulin_isotype_specificity_of_migration_lesions
Attached to:
Microtubule Apparatus Perturbation
Microtubule-Based Neuronal Motility Failure
The Tubulinopathies grouping keeps its members as separate Disease entries on the premise that tubulin isotypes differ in expression timing and binding partners, so an equivalent lesion in a different isotype yields a different malformation. That premise is the load-bearing justification for the split, and until recently it was asserted rather than evidenced. Two independent lines of 2026 work now supply the two halves of a mechanism. First, composition: spatially resolved atlases show tubulin isotype transcripts are not interchangeable across cell states, ranging from broadly expressed (TUBA1A, TUBA1B) to cell-type-restricted, with TUBB3 and TUBG1 enriched in particular lineages. Second, consequence: the isotype-specific C-terminal tails differentially engage motor proteins, with TUBB2A, TUBB2B and TUBB2C altering the conformational motions of the dynein microtubule-binding and stalk domains. Together these predict that which isotype is mutated determines both WHERE and WHEN the lesion is felt and WHICH motor-dependent step degrades. What is still missing is the direct test: no study has taken one substitution to an equivalent structural position across several isotypes in a common cellular background and measured the divergence. Until that exists, isotype specificity remains a well-motivated model rather than a demonstrated explanation, and curators should not attribute a member's distinctive malformation pattern to its isotype as though the causal chain were established.