MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001107680 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.22495

Tinman is a direct activator of <i>midline</i> in the <i>drosophila</i> dorsal vessel

2010· article· en· W2001107680 on OpenAlexafffund
Jae‐Ryeon Ryu, Nima Najand, William J. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyDrosophila melanogasterTranscription factorReporter geneGATA transcription factorGeneticsUltrabithoraxHeart developmentActivator (genetics)RegulatorGeneMolecular biologyCell biologyGene expressionPromoterEmbryonic stem cellHox gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heart development requires a conserved core of transcription factors comprised of Nkx2.5, GATA and T-box family transcription factors. In Drosophila melanogaster, the Nkx2.5 gene tinman acts upstream of many cardiac genes including the Tbx20 homolog midline, a critical regulator of heart development in both flies and vertebrates. By testing genomic fragments containing clusters of consensus Tinman-binding sites, we identified a 4.3 kb fragment 5' of midline that directs reporter expression in all midline-expressing heart cells and a 1.7 kb subfragment that drives reporter expression in mid-expressing heart cells that maintain tin expression. Both fragments direct reporter gene expression in response to tinman in transgenic embryos and in transient transfection assays in Drosophila S2 cells. Mutation of two Tinman binding sites (Tin1 and Tin2) reduces or abolishes cardiac expression in derivatives of the 1.7 kb fragment. We conclude that Tin is a direct regulator of midline in fly heart 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207