MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170904612 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0599

A stem-deuterostome origin of the vertebrate pharyngeal transcriptional network

2011· article· en· W2170904612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Andrew Gillis, Jens H. Fritzenwanker, Christopher J. Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyEndodermVertebrateAnatomyMesodermEctodermBrachyuryNeural crestPharyngeal pouchMesenchymeEmbryoGeneticsEmbryogenesisEmbryonic stem cellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemichordate worms possess ciliated gills on their trunk, and the homology of these structures with the pharyngeal gill slits of chordates has long been a topic of debate in the fields of evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy. Here, we show conservation of transcription factor expression between the developing pharyngeal gill pores of the hemichordate Saccoglossus kowalevskii and the pharyngeal gill slit precursors (i.e. pharyngeal endodermal outpockets) of vertebrates. Transcription factors that are expressed in the pharyngeal endoderm, ectoderm and mesenchyme of vertebrates are expressed exclusively in the pharyngeal endoderm of S. kowalevskii. The pharyngeal arches and tongue bars of S. kowalevskii lack Tbx1-expressing mesoderm, and are supported solely by an acellular collagenous endoskeleton and by compartments of the trunk coelom. Our findings suggest that hemichordate and vertebrate gills are homologous as simple endodermal outpockets from the foregut, and that much vertebrate pharyngeal complexity arose coincident with the incorporation of cranial paraxial mesoderm and neural crest-derived mesenchyme within pharyngeal arches along the chordate and vertebrate stems, respectively.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations105
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207