MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745530102 · doi:10.1002/dvg.23046

Insights on the role of hox genes in the emergence of the pentadactyl ground state

2017· review· en· W2745530102 on OpenAlexafffund
Yacine Kherdjemil, Marie Kmita

Bibliographic record

Venuegenesis · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHox geneTetrapod (structure)BiologyNumerical digitEvolutionary biologyVertebrateExtant taxonGeneGeneticsPaleontologyTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tetrapods are characterized by the presence of digits at the distal end of their limbs, which have emerged during the transition from fins to limbs. While variations in digit number are observed in extant tetrapods, most have five digits per limb and divergence from this pentadactyl ground state is always a reduction in digit number. Paleontological data revealed that stem-group tetrapods were polydactylous indicating that the evolution from fish fin to modern tetrapod limbs involved two major transitions; the emergence of digits and the shift from polydactyly to pentadactyly. The absence of living polydactyl tetrapod species is a major limitation in assessing the foundation of the pentadactyl constraint. Nonetheless, several genes having the capacity of modulating digit number have been identified and studying their functional and regulatory phylogeny will likely be critical in our comprehension of the emergence of the pentadactyl state. In this review, we provide an overview of the data obtained from mouse genetics that uncovered the role of Hox genes in controlling digit number and discuss regulatory changes that could have been implicated in the emergence of the pentadactyl ground state.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuegenesisSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207