Embryological origins and development of the rat diaphragm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Textbooks of embryology provide a standard set of drawings and text reflecting the traditional interpretation of phrenic nerve and diaphragm development based on anatomical dissections of embryonic tissue. Here, we revisit this issue, taking advantage of immunohistochemical markers for muscle precursors in conjunction with mouse mutants to perform a systematic examination of phrenic-diaphragm embryogenesis. This includes examining the spatiotemporal relationship of phrenic axon outgrowth and muscle precursors during different stages of myogenesis. Additionally, mutant mice lacking c-met receptors were used to visualize the mesenchymal substratum of the developing diaphragm in the absence of myogenic cells. We found no evidence for contributions to the diaphragm musculature from the lateral body wall, septum transversum, or esophageal mesenchyme, as standard dogma would state. Nor did the data support the hypothesis that the crural diaphragm is of distinct embryological origins. Rather, we found that myogenic cells and axons destined to form the neuromuscular component of the diaphragm coalesce within the pleuroperitoneal fold (PPF). It is the expansion of these components of the PPF that leads to the formation of the diaphragm. Furthermore, we extended these studies to examine the developing diaphragm in an animal model of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). We find that malformation of the PPF mesenchymal substratum leads to the defect characteristic of CDH. In summary, the data demonstrates that a significant revision of narratives describing normal and pathological development of the diaphragm is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".