MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058407421 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118355

Mind the Gap: Genetic Manipulation of Basicranial Growth within Synchondroses Modulates Calvarial and Facial Shape in Mice through Epigenetic Interactions

2015· article· en· W2058407421 on OpenAlexafffund
Trish E. Parsons, Charlene M. Downey, Frank R. Jirik, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Heather A. Jamniczky

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Bone and Joint Health Institute
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchGenome CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypeSkullEpigeneticsEvolutionary biologyCartilageOntogenyLocus (genetics)SynchondrosisNeuroscienceAnatomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenotypic integration patterns in the mammalian skull have long been a focus of intense interest as a result of their suspected influence on the trajectory of hominid evolution. Here we test the hypothesis that perturbation of cartilage growth, which directly affects only the chondrocranium during development, will produce coordinated shape changes in the adult calvarium and face regardless of mechanism. Using two murine models of cartilage undergrowth that target two very different mechanisms, we show that strong reduction in cartilage growth produces a short, wide, and more flexed cranial base. This in turn produces a short, wide face in both models. Cranial base and face are already correlated early in ontogeny, and the relationship between these modules gains structure through postnatal growth and development. These results provide further evidence that there exist physical interactions between developing parts of the phenotype that produce variation at a distance from the actual locus upon which a particular selective pressure is acting. Phenotypic changes observed over the course of evolution may not all require adaptationist explanations; rather, it is likely that a substantial portion of observed phenotypic variation over the history of a clade is not directly adaptive but rather a secondary consequence of some local response to selection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207