MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153718037 · doi:10.1242/dev.102913

Raeppli: a whole-tissue labeling tool for live imaging of <i>Drosophila</i> development

2013· article· en· W2153718037 on OpenAlexaff
Oguz Kanca, Emmanuel Caussinus, Alexandru S. Denes, Anthony Percival‐Smith, Markus Affolter

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyImaginal discDrosophila melanogasterWingPrimordiumLive cell imagingLarvaDrosophila (subgenus)Developmental biologyCell biologyAnatomyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsBotanyCellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observation of how cells divide, grow, migrate and form different parts of a developing organism is crucial for understanding developmental programs. Here, we describe a multicolor imaging tool named Raeppli (after the colorful confetti used at the carnival in Basel). Raeppli allows whole-tissue labeling such that the descendants of the majority of cells in a single organ are labeled and can be followed simultaneously relative to one another. We tested the use of Raeppli in the Drosophila melanogaster wing imaginal disc. Induction of Raeppli during larval stages irreversibly labels >90% of the cells with one of four spectrally separable, bright fluorescent proteins with low bias of selection. To understand the global growth characteristics of imaginal discs better, we induced Raeppli at various stages of development, imaged multiple fixed discs at the end of their larval development and estimated the size of their pouch primordium at those developmental stages. We also imaged the same wing disc through the larval cuticle at different stages of its development; the clones marked by Raeppli provide landmarks that can be correlated between multiple time points. Finally, we used Raeppli for continuous live imaging of prepupal eversion of the wing disc.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations55
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207