Genetic regulation of patterned tubular branching in <i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common theme in organogenesis is the branching of epithelial tubes, for example in the lung, liver, or kidney. The later morphogenesis of these branched epithelia dictates the final form and function of the mature tissue. Epithelial branching requires the specification of branch cells, the eversion process itself, and, frequently, patterned morphogenesis to produce branches of specific shape and orientation. Using the branching of renal tubule primordia from the hindgut in Drosophila, we show that these aspects are coordinately regulated. Cell specification depends on Wnt signaling along the tubular gut and results in the spatially restricted coexpression of two transcription factors, Krüppel and Cut, in the hindgut, whose activity drives cells toward renal tubule fate. Significantly, these transcription factors also confer the competence to respond to a second signal; TGF-beta induces branching to form the four renal tubule buds. Differential activation of the TGF-beta pathway also patterns the tubules, resulting in the asymmetry in size and positioning that is characteristic of the two tubule pairs. High levels of TGF-beta promote the expression of Dorsocross1-3 and anterior tubule growth, whereas low levels allow the expression of the transcriptional repressor, Brinker, and thus promote posterior tubule identity. We show that patterning of the tubule primordium into two distinct pairs is critical for the eversion of tubule branches, as well as for their asymmetric morphogenesis.
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".