MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078325636 · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.167460

Genetic Interactions Between <i>Shox2</i> and <i>Hox</i> Genes During the Regional Growth and Development of the Mouse Limb

2014· article· en· W2078325636 on OpenAlexafffund
Stanley J. Neufeld, Fan Wang, John Cobb

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHox geneLimb developmentBiologyHomeoboxLimb budHomeotic geneGeneticsPhenotypeMutantGeneEpistasisApical ectodermal ridgeMutationGene expressionEctodermEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth and development of the vertebrate limb relies on homeobox genes of the Hox and Shox families, with their independent mutation often giving dose-dependent effects. Here we investigate whether Shox2 and Hox genes function together during mouse limb development by modulating their relative dosage and examining the limb for nonadditive effects on growth. Using double mRNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in single embryos, we first show that Shox2 and Hox genes have associated spatial expression dynamics, with Shox2 expression restricted to the proximal limb along with Hoxd9 and Hoxa11 expression, juxtaposing the distal expression of Hoxa13 and Hoxd13. By generating mice with all possible dosage combinations of mutant Shox2 alleles and HoxA/D cluster deletions, we then show that their coordinated proximal limb expression is critical to generate normally proportioned limb segments. These epistatic interactions tune limb length, where Shox2 underexpression enhances, and Shox2 overexpression suppresses, Hox-mutant phenotypes. Disruption of either Shox2 or Hox genes leads to a similar reduction in Runx2 expression in the developing humerus, suggesting their concerted action drives cartilage maturation during normal development. While we furthermore provide evidence that Hox gene function influences Shox2 expression, this regulation is limited in extent and is unlikely on its own to be a major explanation for their genetic interaction. Given the similar effect of human SHOX mutations on regional limb growth, Shox and Hox genes may generally function as genetic interaction partners during the growth and development of the proximal vertebrate limb.

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)0.000
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207