MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776713081 · doi:10.1002/dvg.23086

Cell ingression: Relevance to limb development and for adaptive evolution

2017· review· en· W2776713081 on OpenAlexafffund
Clarissa C. Pasiliao, Sevan Hopyan

Bibliographic record

Venuegenesis · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsIngressionLimb developmentRelevance (law)Cell biologyBiologyEvolutionary biologyPolitical scienceEmbryogenesisGastrulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell ingression is an out-of-plane type of cell intercalation that is essential for the formation of multiple embryonic structures including the limbs. In particular, cell ingression underlies epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition of lateral plate cells to initiate limb bud growth, delamination of neural crest cells to generate peripheral nerve sheaths, and emigration of myoblasts from somites to assemble muscles. Individual cells that ingress undergo apical constriction to generate bottle shaped cells, diminish adhesion to their epithelial cell neighbors, and generate protrusive blebs that likely facilitate their ingression into a subepithelial tissue layer. How signaling pathways regulate the progression of delamination is important for understanding numerous developmental events. In this review, we focus on cellular and molecular mechanisms that drive cell ingression and draw comparisons between different morphogenetic contexts in various model organisms. We speculate that cell behaviors that facilitated tissue invagination among diploblasts subsequently drove individual cell ingression and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Future insights that link signalling pathways to biophysical mechanisms will likely advance our comprehension of this phenomenon.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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