Formation and maintenance of morphogen gradients: An essential role for the endomembrane system in<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>wing development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As early as 1964 it was suggested that simple diffusion of morphogens away from their secretion source did not provide an adequate explanation for the formation and maintenance of morphogen gradients. Involvement of the endosome in morphogen distribution models provides an explanation for the slow, directional movement of morphogens, as well as their ability to form intracellular and extracellular gradients independent of morphogen production rates. Drosophila melanogaster morphogens Wg and Dpp form stable, steep, long-range gradients that specify the polarity of the wing disc. The process of endocytosis is imperative to the two central themes in gradient formation: active transport facilitating long-range signaling and degradation of morphogen to sustain gradient shape. This review investigates the endomembrane-mediated processes of re-secretion, degradation and argosome transport of Wg and Dpp in the hope that a better understanding of the endomembrane system will contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive model for morphogen gradient formation and maintenance.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".