Using Zebrafish to Test the Genetic Basis of Human Craniofacial Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) opened an innovative and productive avenue to investigate the molecular basis of human craniofacial disease. However, GWASs identify candidate genes only; they do not prove that any particular one is the functional villain underlying disease or just an unlucky genomic bystander. Genetic manipulation of animal models is the best approach to reveal which genetic loci identified from human GWASs are functionally related to specific diseases. The purpose of this review is to discuss the potential of zebrafish to resolve which candidate genetic loci are mechanistic drivers of craniofacial diseases. Many anatomic, embryonic, and genetic features of craniofacial development are conserved among zebrafish and mammals, making zebrafish a good model of craniofacial diseases. Also, the ability to manipulate gene function in zebrafish was greatly expanded over the past 20 y, enabling systems such as Gateway Tol2 and CRISPR-Cas9 to test gain- and loss-of-function alleles identified from human GWASs in coding and noncoding regions of DNA. With the optimization of genetic editing methods, large numbers of candidate genes can be efficiently interrogated. Finding the functional villains that underlie diseases will permit new treatments and prevention strategies and will increase understanding of how gene pathways operate during normal development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".