MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159976692 · doi:10.1016/s1672-0229(11)60011-9

Evolution of Invertebrate Deuterostomes and Hox/ParaHox Genes

2011· review· en· W2159976692 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tetsuro Ikuta

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Institute of GeneticsUniversity of TokyoOkinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate UniversityUniversity of St AndrewsKanazawa UniversityHiroshima UniversityTokyo Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Hawai'i
KeywordsHox geneBilateriaHomeoboxBiologyAntennapediaEvolutionary biologyMost recent common ancestorSister groupVertebrateGeneticsGeneAnatomyPhylogeneticsTranscription factorClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcription factors encoded by Antennapedia-class homeobox genes play crucial roles in controlling development of animals, and are often found clustered in animal genomes. The Hox and ParaHox gene clusters have been regarded as evolutionary sisters and evolved from a putative common ancestral gene complex, the ProtoHox cluster, prior to the divergence of the Cnidaria and Bilateria (bilaterally symmetrical animals). The Deuterostomia is a monophyletic group of animals that belongs to the Bilateria, and a sister group to the Protostomia. The deuterostomes include the vertebrates (to which we belong), invertebrate chordates, hemichordates, echinoderms and possibly xenoturbellids, as well as acoelomorphs. The studies of Hox and ParaHox genes provide insights into the origin and subsequent evolution of the bilaterian animals. Recently, it becomes apparent that among the Hox and ParaHox genes, there are significant variations in organization on the chromosome, expression pattern, and function. In this review, focusing on invertebrate deuterostomes, I first summarize recent findings about Hox and ParaHox genes. Next, citing unsolved issues, I try to provide clues that might allow us to reconstruct the common ancestor of deuterostomes, as well as understand the roles of Hox and ParaHox genes in the development and evolution of deuterostomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomics Proteomics & BioinformaticsSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207