Craniofacial development: discoveries made in the chicken embryo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to highlight some of the key contributions to our understanding of craniofacial research from work carried out with the chicken and other avian embryos. From the very first observations of neural crest cell migration to the fusion of the primary palate, the chicken has proven indispensable in facilitating craniofacial research. In this review we will look back to the premolecular studies where "cut and paste" grafting experiments mapped the fate of cranial neural crest cells, the role of different tissue layers in patterning the face, and more recently the contribution of neural crest cells to jaw size and identity. In the late 80's the focus shifted to the molecular underpinnings of facial development and, in addition to grafting experiments, various chemicals and growth factors were being applied to the face. The chicken is above all else an experimental model, inviting hands-on manipulations. We describe the elegant discoveries made by directly controlling signaling either in the brain, in the pharyngeal arches or in the face itself. We cover how sonic hedgehog (Shh) signals to the face and how various growth factors regulate facial prominence identity, growth and fusion. We also review abnormal craniofacial development and how several type of spontaneous chicken mutants shed new light on diseases affecting the primary cilium in humans. Finally, we bring out the very important role that the bird beak has played in understanding amniote evolution. The chicken, duck and quail have been and will continue to be used as experimental models to explore the evolution of jaw diversity and the morphological constraints of the vertebrate face.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".