MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retention of the duplicated cellular retinoic acid‐binding protein 1 genes (<i>crabp1a</i> and <i>crabp1b</i>) in the zebrafish genome by subfunctionalization of tissue‐specific expression

2005· article· en· W2050303620 on OpenAlexafffund
Rong‐Zong Liu, Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Qian Sun, Christine Thisse, Bernard Thisse, Eileen M. Denovan‐Wright, Jonathan Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueKillam TrustsAssociation pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsZebrafishBiologySubfunctionalizationGeneticsGeneGene familyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cellular retinoic acid-binding protein type I (CRABPI) is encoded by a single gene in mammals. We have characterized two crabp1 genes in zebrafish, designated crabp1a and crabp1b. These two crabp1 genes share the same gene structure as the mammalian CRABP1 genes and encode proteins that show the highest amino acid sequence identity to mammalian CRABPIs. The zebrafish crabp1a and crabp1b were assigned to linkage groups 25 and 7, respectively. Both linkage groups show conserved syntenies to a segment of the human chromosome 15 harboring the CRABP1 locus. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that the zebrafish crabp1a and crabp1b are orthologs of the mammalian CRABP1 genes that likely arose from a teleost fish lineage-specific genome duplication. Embryonic whole mount in situ hybridization detected zebrafish crabp1b transcripts in the posterior hindbrain and spinal cord from early stages of embryogenesis. crabp1a mRNA was detected in the forebrain and midbrain at later developmental stages. In adult zebrafish, crabp1a mRNA was localized to the optic tectum, whereas crabp1b mRNA was detected in several tissues by RT-PCR but not by tissue section in situ hybridization. The differential and complementary expression patterns of the zebrafish crabp1a and crabp1b genes imply that subfunctionalization may be the mechanism for the retention of both crabp1 duplicated genes in the zebrafish genome.

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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS JournalSame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207