MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulation of Wnt‐mediated developmental competency by Pygo‐Bcl9 during body axis specification in Xenopus

2010· article· en· W2294648244 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth R. Kao, Mark Kennedy, Phillip Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWnt signaling pathwayXenopusBiologyCell biologyGeneTranscription factorEmbryoGeneticsAnatomySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The early Xenopus embryo responds to the Wnt/β‐catenin intracellular signaling pathway by specifying dorsoanterior body structures. The loss of competence to specify the dorsal side at midblastula is followed closely by commitment to the dorsal lineage by transcriptional activation of dorsoanterior genes. The objective of our study is to determine the role of a core component duet of the β‐catenin transcription complex, made up of Pygopus and Legless/Bcl9 (Pygo‐Bcl9) during body axis specification in Xenopus embryos. Pygo‐Bcl9 recruits chromatin‐remodeling factors to the complex located at promoters of actively transcribing Wnt target genes. Maternal depletion of Bcl9 mRNA prevents body axis formation while co‐expression of Pygo‐Bcl9 ectopically activates dorsoanterior gene expression, inducing a supernumerary embryonic axis. Interestingly Bcl9 mRNA is present in the embryo during the period of Wnt/β‐catenin competence, but is rapidly translated at the end of the competency period, when dorsoanterior gene transcription occurs. We hypothesize that translation of Bcl9 defines the end of the period of competency. We propose that the identification of the factors that regulate Bcl9 translation will provide further insight into the molecular mechanisms of developmental competence.

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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207