Screen for genes differentially expressed during regeneration of the zebrafish caudal fin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The zebrafish caudal fin constitutes an important model for studying the molecular basis of tissue regeneration. The cascade of genes induced after amputation or injury, leading to restoration of the lost fin structures, include those responsible for wound healing, blastema formation, tissue outgrowth, and patterning. We carried out a systematic study to identify genes that are up-regulated during "initiation" (1 day) and "outgrowth and differentiation" (4 days) of fin regeneration by using two complementary methods, suppression subtraction hybridization (SSH) and differential display reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (DDRT-PCR). We obtained 298 distinct genes/sequences from SSH libraries and 24 distinct genes/sequences by DDRT-PCR. We determined the expression of 54 of these genes using in situ hybridization. In parallel, gene expression analyses were done in zebrafish embryos and early larvae. The information gathered from the present study provides resources for further investigations into the molecular mechanisms of fin development and regeneration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".