Modulation of Phase Shift between Wnt and Notch Signaling Oscillations Controls Mesoderm Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How signaling dynamics encode information is a central question in biology. During vertebrate development, dynamic Notch signaling oscillations control segmentation of the presomitic mesoderm (PSM). In mouse embryos, this molecular clock comprises signaling oscillations of several pathways, i.e., Notch, Wnt, and FGF signaling. Here, we directly address the role of the relative timing between Wnt and Notch signaling oscillations during PSM patterning. To this end, we developed a new experimental strategy using microfluidics-based entrainment that enables specific control of the rhythm of segmentation clock oscillations. Using this approach, we find that Wnt and Notch signaling are coupled at the level of their oscillation dynamics. Furthermore, we provide functional evidence that the oscillation phase shift between Wnt and Notch signaling is critical for PSM segmentation. Our work hence reveals that dynamic signaling, i.e., the relative timing between oscillatory signals, encodes essential information during multicellular 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".