Analysis of hindbrain patterning defects caused by the <i>kreisler</i><sup><i>enu</i></sup> mutation reveals multiple roles of <i>Kreisler</i> in hindbrain segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The embryonic hindbrain is subdivided into eight subunits, termed rhombomeres (r1-r8). The Kreisler (Krml1/MafB/val) transcription factor is expressed in and essential for patterning rhombomeres 5 and 6. Here, we have shown that in the chemically induced kreisler(enu) (kr(enu)) allele, a point mutation in the DNA binding domain abolishes or severely reduces Kreisler-dependent transcription. Comparison of kr(enu)/kr(enu) embryos with those homozygous for the classic kreisler (kr) mutation has reconciled past discrepancies and revealed multiple roles of Kreisler in hindbrain segmentation. These analyses demonstrate that Kreisler is required for maintenance and expansion but not initiation of the Krox20 expressing r5 domain. The differences in the "r5-like" phenotype of kr(enu)/kr(enu) and kr/kr mouse embryos, and zebrafish carrying mutations in the Kreisler orthologue valentino (val) suggest that Kreisler performs many of its r5-specific functions by associating with other proteins. By contrast, kr/kr and kr(enu)/kr(enu) mouse and val-/- zebrafish embryos all exhibit indistinguishable defects in r6 specification. Thus, transcriptionally active Kreisler is required for r6 specification. Unlike mouse kr(enu)/kr(enu) and zebrafish val-/- embryos, kr/kr embryos exhibited anterior defects. We determined that the kr chromosomal inversion caused ectopic Kreisler expression in r3 of kr/kr and kr/+ embryos. Hence, Kreisler regulates maintenance and expansion of r5 and specification of r6 but is not required for r3 development.
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) | 0.002 | 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".