Tissue-specific differential induction of duplicated fatty acid-binding protein genes by the peroxisome proliferator, clofibrate, in zebrafish (Danio rerio)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Force, Lynch and Conery proposed the duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model in which partitioning of ancestral functions (subfunctionalization) and acquisition of novel functions (neofunctionalization) were the two primary mechanisms for the retention of duplicated genes. The DDC model was tested by analyzing the transcriptional induction of the duplicated fatty acid-binding protein (fabp) genes by clofibrate in zebrafish. Clofibrate is a specific ligand of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR); it activates PPAR which then binds to a peroxisome proliferator response element (PPRE) to induce the transcriptional initiation of genes primarily involved in lipid homeostasis. Zebrafish was chosen as our model organism as it has many duplicated genes owing to a whole genome duplication (WGD) event that occurred ~230-400 million years ago in the teleost fish lineage. We assayed the steady-state levels of fabp mRNA and heterogeneous nuclear RNA (hnRNA) transcripts in liver, intestine, muscle, brain and heart for four sets of duplicated fabp genes, fabp1a/fabp1b.1/fabp1b.2, fabp7a/fabp7b, fabp10a/fabp10b and fabp11a/fabp11b in zebrafish fed different concentrations of clofibrate. RESULT: Electron microscopy showed an increase in the number of peroxisomes and mitochondria in liver and heart, respectively, in zebrafish fed clofibrate. Clofibrate also increased the steady-state level of acox1 mRNA and hnRNA transcripts in different tissues, a gene with a functional PPRE. These results demonstrate that zebrafish is responsive to clofibrate, unlike some other fishes. The levels of fabp mRNA and hnRNA transcripts for the four sets of duplicated fabp genes was determined by reverse transcription, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). The level of hnRNA coded by a gene is an indirect estimate of the rate of transcriptional initiation of that gene. Clofibrate increased the steady-state level of fabp mRNAs and hnRNAs for both the duplicated copies of fabp1a/fabp1b.1, and fabp7a/fabp7b, but in different tissues. Clofibrate also increased the steady-state level of fabp10a and fabp11a mRNAs and hnRNAs in liver, but not for fabp10b and fabp11b. CONCLUSION: Some duplicated fabp genes have, most likely, retained PPREs, but induction by clofibrate is over-ridden by an, as yet, unknown tissue-specific mechanism(s). Regardless of the tissue-specific mechanism(s), transcriptional control of duplicated zebrafish fabp genes by clofibrate has markedly diverged since the WGD event.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".