Tinkering with Constraints in the Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb Anterior–Posterior Polarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genes belonging to both HoxA and HoxD clusters are required for proper vertebrate limb development. Mice lacking all, or parts of, Hoxa and Hoxd functions in forelimbs, as well as mice with a gain of function of these genes in the early limb bud, have helped us to understand functional and regulatory issues associated with these genes, such that, for example, the tight mechanistic interdependency that exists between the production of the limb and its anterior to posterior (AP) polarity. Our studies suggest that the evolutionary recruitment of Hox gene function into growing appendages was crucial to implement hedgehog signalling, subsequently leading to the distal extension of tetrapod appendages, with an already built-in AP polarity. We propose that this process results from the evolutionary co-option, in the developing limbs, of a particular regulatory mechanism (collinearity), which is necessary to pattern the developing trunk. This major regulatory constraint imposed a polarity to our limbs as the most parsimonious solution to grow appendages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".