Genetic Annotation of Gain-Of-Function Screens Using RNA Interference and <i>in Situ</i> Hybridization of Candidate Genes in the <i>Drosophila</i> Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gain-of-function screens in Drosophila are an effective method with which to identify genes that affect the development of particular structures or cell types. It has been found that a fraction of 2-10% of the genes tested, depending on the particularities of the screen, results in a discernible phenotype when overexpressed. However, it is not clear to what extent a gain-of-function phenotype generated by overexpression is informative about the normal function of the gene. Thus, very few reports attempt to correlate the loss- and overexpression phenotype for collections of genes identified in gain-of-function screens. In this work we use RNA interference and in situ hybridization to annotate a collection of 123 P-GS insertions that in combination with different Gal4 drivers affect the size and/or patterning of the wing. We identify the gene causing the overexpression phenotype by expressing, in a background of overexpression, RNA interference for the genes affected by each P-GS insertion. Then, we compare the loss and gain-of-function phenotypes obtained for each gene and relate them to its expression pattern in the wing disc. We find that 52% of genes identified by their overexpression phenotype are required during normal development. However, only in 9% of the cases analyzed was there some complementarity between the gain- and loss-of-function phenotype, suggesting that, in general, the overexpression phenotypes would not be indicative of the normal requirements of the gene.
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".