MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conserved and divergent functions of <i>Drosophila atonal</i>, amphibian, and mammalian <i>Ath5</i> genes

2003· article· en· W1964349154 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution & Development · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyOmmatidiumXenopusVertebrateEye developmentGeneDrosophila (subgenus)Cell biologyGeneticsNeural developmentCompound eyeEvolutionary biologyTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect and vertebrate eyes differ in their formation, cellular composition, neural connectivity, and visual function. Despite this diversity, Drosophila atona and its vertebrate Ortholog in the eye, Ath5, each regulate determination of the first retinal neuron class-R8 photo-receptors and retinal ganglion cells (RGCs)-in their respective organisms. We have performed a cross-species functional comparison of these genes. In ato mutant Drosophila, ectopic Xenopus Ath5 (Xath5) rescues photoreceptor cell development comparably with atonaI. In contrast, mouse Ath5 (Math5) induces formation of very few ommatidia, and most of these lack R8 cells. In the developing frog eye, ectopic atonal, like Xath5, promotes the differentiation RGCs. Despite strong conservation of atonaI, Xath5, and Math5 structure and shared function, other factors must contribute to the species specificity of retinal neuron determination. These observations suggest that the atonaI family may occupy a position in a gene hierarchy where differences in gene regulation or function can be correlated with evolutionary diversity of eye development.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it