Differential tissue‐specific distribution of transcripts for the duplicated fatty acid‐binding protein 10 (<i>fabp10</i>) genes in embryos, larvae and adult zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic and cDNA sequences coding for a fatty acid-binding protein (FABP) in zebrafish were retrieved from DNA sequence databases. The cDNA codes for a protein of 14.7 kDa (pI = 5.94), and the gene consists of four exons, properties characteristic of most vertebrate FABP genes. Phylogenetic analyses using vertebrate FABPs indicated that this protein is most similar to zebrafish Fabp10. Currently, only one fabp10 gene is annotated in the zebrafish genome. In this article, the notations 'fabp10a' and 'fabp10b' are used to refer to the duplicate copies of fabp10. The zebrafish fabp10a and fabp10b genes were assigned by radiation hybrid mapping to chromosomes 16 and 19, respectively. On the basis of conserved gene synteny with chicken FABP10 on chromosome 23, zebrafish fabp10a and fabp10b are duplicates resulting from a whole-genome duplication event early in the ray-finned fish lineage some 230-400 million years ago. Whole-mount in situ hybridization detected fabp10b transcripts only in the olfactory vesicles of embryos and larvae, whereas fabp10a transcripts have been shown previously to be present only in the liver of embryos and larvae. In adults, RT-PCR detected fabp10b transcripts in all tissues assayed. By contrast, fabp10a transcripts were detected only in adult liver, intestine and testis. This differential tissue distribution of transcripts for the duplicated fabp10 genes suggests considerable divergence of their cis-acting regulatory elements since their duplication.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".