MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097101439 · doi:10.1186/s12861-015-0090-9

Med14 cooperates with brg1 in the differentiation of skeletogenic neural crest

2015· article· en· W2097101439 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Lou, Jeffrey T. A. Burrows, Ian C. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Developmental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationCanada Research ChairsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNeural crestBiologyZebrafishCell biologyNeural foldMesodermMutantMutationCrestEpigeneticsOrganogenesisGeneticsDevelopmental biologyCellular differentiationEmbryoNeural plateGeneEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An intricate gene regulatory network drives neural crest migration and differentiation. How epigenetic regulators contribute to this process is just starting to be understood. RESULTS: We found that mutation of med14 or brg1 in zebrafish embryos resulted in a cluster of neural crest cell-related defects. In med14 or brg1 mutants, neural crest cells that form the jaw skeleton were specified normally and migrated to target sites. However, defects in their subsequent terminal differentiation were evident. Transplantation experiments demonstrated that med14 and brg1 are required directly in neural crest cells. Analysis of med14; brg1 double mutant embryos suggested the existence of a strong genetic interaction between members of the Mediator and BAF complexes. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a critical role for Mediator and BAF complex function in neural crest development, and may also clarify the nature of defects in some craniofacial abnormalities.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Developmental BiologySame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207