MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144589543 · doi:10.1093/genetics/163.4.1365

An <i>in Vivo</i> Analysis of the <i>vestigial</i> Gene in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> Defines the Domains Required for Vg Function

2003· article· en· W2144589543 on OpenAlexaff
Julie O. MacKay, Kelly H. Soanes, Ajay Srivastava, Andrew Simmonds, William J. Brook, John B. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrosophila melanogasterBiologyIn vivoGeneticsContext (archaeology)Ectopic expressionGeneCell biologyFunction (biology)MutantMelanogaster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considerable evidence indicates an obligate partnership of the Drosophila melanogaster Vestigial (VG) and Scalloped (SD) proteins within the context of wing development. These two proteins interact physically and a 56-amino-acid motif within VG is necessary and sufficient for this binding. While the importance of this SD-binding domain has been clearly demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo, the remaining portions of VG have not been examined for in vivo function. Herein, additional regions within VG were tested for possible in vivo functions. The results identify two additional domains that must be present for optimal VG function as measured by the loss of ability to rescue vg mutants, to induce ectopic sd expression, and to perform other normal VG functions when they are deleted. An in vivo study such as this one is fundamentally important because it identifies domains of VG that are necessary in the cellular context in which wing development actually occurs. The results also indicate that an additional large portion of VG, outside of these two domains and the SD-binding domain, is dispensable in the execution of these normal VG functions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207