Bicoid cooperative DNA binding is critical for embryonic patterning in <i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative interactions by DNA-binding proteins have been implicated in cell-fate decisions in a variety of organisms. To date, however, there are few examples in which the importance of such interactions has been explicitly tested in vivo. Here, we tested the importance of cooperative DNA binding by the Bicoid protein in establishing a pattern along the anterior-posterior axis of the early Drosophila embryo. We found that bicoid mutants specifically defective in cooperative DNA binding fail to direct proper development of the head and thorax, leading to embryonic lethality. The mutants did not faithfully stimulate transcription of downstream target genes such as hunchback (hb), giant, and Krüppel. Quantitative analysis of gene expression in vivo indicated that bcd cooperativity mutants were unable to accurately direct the extent to which hb is expressed along the anterior-posterior axis and displayed a reduced ability to generate sharp on/off transitions for hb gene expression. These failures in precise transcriptional control demonstrate the importance of cooperative DNA binding for embryonic patterning in vivo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".