Divergent roles for Eph and Ephrin in Avian Cranial Neural Crest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As in other vertebrates, avian hindbrain neural crest migrates in streams to specific branchial arches. Signalling from Eph receptors and ephrins has been proposed to provide a molecular mechanism that guides the cells restricting them to streams. In mice and frogs, cranial neural crest express a combination of Eph receptors and ephrins that appear to exclude cells from adjacent tissues by forward and reverse signalling. The objective of this study was to provide comparative data on the distribution and function of Eph receptors and ephrins in avian embryos. RESULTS: To distinguish neural crest from bordering ectoderm and head mesenchyme, we have co-labelled embryos for Eph or ephrin RNA and a neural crest marker protein. Throughout their migration avian cranial neural crest cells express EphA3, EphA4, EphA7, EphB1, and EphB3 and move along pathways bordered by non-neural crest cells expressing ephrin-B1. In addition, avian cranial neural crest cells express ephrin-B2 and migrate along pathways bordered by non-neural crest cells expressing EphB2. Thus, the distribution of avian Eph receptors and ephrins differs from those reported in other vertebrates. In stripe assays when explanted cranial neural crest were given the choice between FN or FN plus clustered ephrin-B1 or EphB2 fusion protein, the cells strongly localize to lanes containing only FN. This preference is mitigated in the presence of soluble ephrin-B1 or EphB2 fusion protein. CONCLUSION: These findings show that avian cranial neural crest use Eph and ephrin receptors as other vertebrates in guiding migration. However, the Eph receptors are expressed in different combinations by neural crest destined for each branchial arch and ephrin-B1 and ephrin-B2 appear to have opposite roles to those reported to guide cranial neural crest migration in mice. Unlike many of the signalling, specification, and effector pathways of neural crest, the roles of Eph receptors and ephrins have not been rigorously conserved. This suggests diversification of receptor and ligand expression is less constrained, possibly by promiscuous binding and use of common downstream pathways.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".