Zebrafish <i>jam‐b2</i> Gal4‐enhancer trap line recapitulates endogenous <i>jam‐b2</i> expression in extraocular muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Members of the junctional adhesion molecule (JAM) family function as cell adhesion molecules and cell surface receptors. The zebrafish genome contains six different jam genes, and jam-b and jam-c were shown to be essential for myoblast fusion during skeletal muscle development. However, little is known about jam-b2 expression and function. RESULTS: We isolated the cDNA of zebrafish jam-b2. jam-b2 is expressed specifically in extraocular muscles (EOMs), jaw muscles, and pectoral fins in zebrafish larvae, but not in trunk muscles. The identified jam-b2 expression pattern is supported by the analysis of a zebrafish Gal4-enhancer trap line, in which the coding sequence of the transcriptional activator KalTA4 together with a Gal4-dependent UAS-mCherry expression cassette was inserted into the jam-b2 locus. Intercrosses with an UAS:EGFP strain proves the possibility for targeting transgene expression to EOMs, jaw muscles and fins. Finally, we characterized the concerted contraction pattern of EOMs in larvae performing an optokinetic response. CONCLUSIONS: The expression pattern of jam-b2 suggests that it may contribute different properties to EOMs, jaw muscles, and pectoral fins. The jam-b2:KalTA4-UAS-mCherry transgenic strain serves a dual role as both a reporter for these muscles and as a valuable genetic tool for targeting transgene expression to EOMs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".