Differential expression of orthologousDlx genes in zebrafish and mice: Implications for the evolution of theDlx homeobox gene family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dlx homeobox genes of vertebrates are often organised as physically linked pairs in which the two genes are transcribed convergently (tail-to-tail arrangement). Three such Dlx pairs have been found in mouse, human, and zebrafish and are thought to have originated from the duplication of an ancestral gene pair. These pairs include Dlx1/Dlx2, Dlx7/Dlx3, and Dlx6/Dlx5 (the zebrafish orthologue of Dlx5 is named dlx4). Expression patterns of physically linked Dlx genes overlap extensively. Furthermore, orthologous Dlx genes often show highly similar expression patterns. We analysed Dlx expression during the gastrula and early somitogenesis of the mouse and zebrafish. It was found that expression of the mouse Dlx6 gene takes place in the rostral ectoderm and presumptive olfactory and otic placodes with patterns similar to the previously reported expression of the physically linked Dlx5 gene. However, we observed only very weak expression of the mouse Dlx3 gene at the same stage. This contrasts with the expression of dlx genes in zebrafish where dlx3 and dlx7, but not dlx4 and dlx6 are expressed during gastrulation in the rostral ectoderm and presumptive placodes. Thus, Dlx expression patterns at early stages are better conserved between paralogous pairs of physically linked genes than between orthologous pairs. This suggests that early expression of Dlx genes existed prior to the duplications that led to the multiple pairs of physically linked genes but was differentially conserved in different paralogs in zebrafish and mice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".