Divergent evolution of <i>cis</i>-acting peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor elements that differentially control the tandemly duplicated fatty acid-binding protein genes, <i>fabp1b.1</i> and <i>fabp1b.2</i>, in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene duplication is thought to facilitate increasing complexity in the evolution of life. The fate of most duplicated genes is nonfunctionalization: functional decay resulting from the accumulation of mutations. According to the duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model, duplicated genes are retained by subfunctionalization, where the functions of the ancestral gene are sub-divided between duplicate genes, or by neofunctionalization, where one of the duplicates acquires a new function. Here, we report the differential regulation of the zebrafish tandemly duplicated fatty acid-binding protein genes, fabp1b.1 and fabp1b.2, by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR). fabp1b.1 mRNA levels were induced in tissue explants of liver, but not intestine, by PPAR agonists. fabp1b.1 promoter activity was induced to a greater extent by rosiglitazone (PPARγ-selective agonist) compared to WY 14,643 (PPARα-selective agonist) in HEK293A cells. Mutation of a peroxisome proliferator response element (PPRE) at -1232 bp in the fabp1b.1 promoter reduced PPAR-dependent activation. fabp1b.2 promoter activity was not affected by PPAR agonists. Differential regulation of the duplicated fabp1b promoters may be the result of PPRE loss in fabp1b.2 during a meiotic crossing-over event. Retention of PPAR inducibility in fabp1b.1 and not fabp1b.2 suggests unique regulation and function of the fabp1b duplicates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".