<i>foxc1a</i> genetically interacts with <i>ripply1</i> to regulate <i>mesp-ba</i> expression and somitogenesis in the zebrafish embryo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Somitogenesis is a fundamental segmentation process that forms the vertebrate body plan. A network of transcription factors is essential in establishing the spatial temporal order of this process. One such transcription factor is mesp -ba which has an important role in determining somite boundary formation. Its expression in somitogenesis is tightly regulated by the transcriptional activator Tbx6 and the repressor Ripply1 via a feedback regulatory network. Loss of foxc1a function in zebrafish leads to lack of anterior somite formation and reduced mesp-ba expression. Here we examine how foxc1a interacts with the tbx6-ripply1 network to regulate mesp-ba expression. In foxc1a morphants, anterior somites did not form at 12.5 hours post fertilization (hpf). At 22 hpf posterior somites formed, whereas anterior somites remained absent. In ripply1 morphants, no somites were observed at any time point. The expression of mesp-ba was reduced in the foxc1a morphants and expanded anteriorly in ripply1 morphants. The tbx6 expression domain was smaller and shifted anteriorly in the foxc1a morphants. Double knockdown of foxc1a and ripply1 resulted in absence of anterior somite formation while posterior somites did form, suggesting a partial rescue of the ripply1 phenotype. However, unlike the single foxc1a morphants, expression of mesp-ba was restored in the anterior PSM. Expression of tbx6 was expanded anteriorly in the double morphants. In conclusion, both foxc1a and ripply1 morphants displayed defects in somitogenesis, but their individual loss of function had opposing effects on mesp-ba expression. Loss of ripply1 appears to have rescued the mesp- ba expression in the foxc1a morphant, suggesting that intersection of these parallel regulatory mechanisms is required for normal mesp-ba expression and somite formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".