Functional resolution of duplicated<i>hoxb5</i>genes in teleosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model predicts that subfunctionalization of duplicated genes is a common mechanism for their preservation. The additional Hox complexes of teleost fish constitute a good system in which to test this hypothesis. Zebrafish have two hoxb complexes, with two hoxb5 genes, hoxb5a and hoxb5b, the expression patterns of which suggest subfunctionalization of an ancestral hoxb5 gene. We characterized conserved non-coding elements (CNEs) near the zebrafish hoxb5 genes. One CNE, J3, is only retained in the hoxb5a locus, whereas the others, J1 and J2, are present in both hoxb5 loci. When tested individually, the enhancer activity of individual CNEs, including J3, extensively overlapped and did not support a role in subfunctionalization. By contrast, reporter transgene constructs encompassing multiple CNEs were able to target reporter gene expression to unique domains of hoxb5a and hoxb5b expression. The deletion of J3 from the hoxb5a locus resulted in expression that approached that of hoxb5b, whereas its insertion in the hoxb5b locus increased reporter expression and rendered it more similar to that of hoxb5a. Our results highlight the importance of interactions between CNEs in the execution of complementary subfunctions of duplicated genes.
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".