Detangling the evolutionary developmental integration of dentate jaws: evidence that a <i>p63</i> gene network regulates odontogenesis exclusive of mandible morphogenesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Vertebrate jaws and dentitions fit and function together, yet the genetic processes that coordinate cranial and dental morphogenesis and evolution remain poorly understood. Teeth but not jaws fail to form in the edentate p63 −/− mouse mutant, which we used here to identify genes important to odontogenesis, but not jaw morphogenesis, and that may allow dentitions to change during development and evolution without necessarily affecting the jaw skeleton. With the working hypothesis that tooth and jaw development are autonomously controlled by discreet gene regulatory networks, using gene expression microarray assays validated by quantitative reverse‐transcription PCR we contrasted expression in mandibular prominences at embryonic days (E) 10–13 of mice with normal lower jaw development but either normal ( p63 +/− , p63 +/+ ) or arrested ( p63 −/− ) tooth development. The p63 −/− mice showed significantly different expression (fold change ≥2, ≤−2; P ≤ 0.05) of several genes. Some of these are known to help regulate odontogenesis (e.g., p63 , Osr2 , Cldn3/4 ) and/or to be targets of p63 (e.g., Jag1/2 , Fgfr2 ); other genes have no previously reported roles in odontogenesis or the p63 pathway (e.g., Fermt1 , Cbln1 , Pltp , Krt8 ). As expected, from E10 to E13, few genes known to regulate mandible morphogenesis differed in expression between mouse strains. This study newly links several genes to odontogenesis and/or to the p63 signaling network. We propose that these genes act in a novel odontogenic network that is exclusive of lower jaw morphogenesis, and posit that this network evolved in oral, not pharyngeal, teeth.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it