Expression of pair-rule gene homologues in a chelicerate: early patterning of the two-spotted spider mite<i>Tetranychus urticae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryo segmentation has been studied extensively in the fruit fly, Drosophila. These studies have demonstrated that a mechanism acting with dual segment periodicity is required for correct patterning of the body plan in this insect, but the evolutionary origin of the mechanism, the pair-rule system, is unclear. We have examined the expression of the homologues of two Drosophila pair-rule genes, runt and paired (Pax Group III), in segmenting embryos of the two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch). Spider mites are chelicerates, a group of arthropods that diverged from the lineage leading to Drosophila at least 520 million years ago. In T. urticae, the Pax Group III gene Tu-pax3/7 was expressed during patterning of the prosoma, but not the opisthosoma, in a series of stripes which appear first in even numbered segments, and then in odd numbered segments. The mite runt homologue (Tu-run) in contrast was expressed early in a circular domains that resolved into a segmental pattern. The expression patterns of both of these genes also indicated they are regulated very differently from their Drosophila homologues. The expression pattern of Tu-pax3/7 lends support to the possibility that a pair-rule patterning mechanism is active in the segmentation pathways of chelicerates.
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".