Divergent palate morphology in turtles and birds correlates with differences in proliferation and <i>BMP2</i> expression during embryonic development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During embryonic development, amniotes typically form outgrowths from the medial sides of the maxillary prominences called palatal shelves or palatine processes. In mammals the shelves fuse in the midline and form a bony hard palate that completely separates the nasal and oral cavities. In birds and lizards, palatine processes develop but remain unfused, leaving a natural cleft. Adult turtles do not possess palatine processes and unlike other amniotes, the internal nares open into the oral cavity. Here we investigate craniofacial ontogeny in the turtle, Emydura subglobosa to determine whether vestigial palatine processes develop and subsequently regress, or whether development fails entirely. We found that the primary palate in turtles develops similarly to other amniotes, but secondary palate ontogeny diverges. Using histology, cellular dynamics and in situ hybridization we found no evidence of palatine process development at any time during ontogeny of the face in the turtle. Furthermore, detailed comparisons with chicken embryos (the model organism most closely related to turtles from a molecular phylogeny perspective), we identified differences in proliferation and gene expression patterns that correlate with the differences in palate morphology. We propose that, in turtles, palatine process outgrowth is never initiated due to a lack of mesenchymal bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) expression in the maxillary mesenchyme, which in turn fails to induce the relatively higher cellular proliferation required for medial tissue outgrowth. It is likely that these differences between turtles and birds arose after the divergence of the lineage leading to modern turtles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".