Photoreceptor Progenitors Depend Upon Coordination of<i>gdf6a</i>,<i>thrβ</i>, and<i>tbx2b</i>to Generate Precise Populations of Cone Photoreceptor Subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Replacing cone photoreceptors, the units of the retina necessary for daytime vision, depends upon the successful production of a full variety of new cones from, for example, stem cells. Using genetic experiments in a model organism with high cone diversity, zebrafish, we map the intersecting effects of cone development factors gdf6a, tbx2b, and thrβ. Methods: We investigated these genes of interest by using genetic combinations of mutants, gene knockdown, and dominant negative gene expression, and then quantified cone subtype outcomes (which normally develop in tightly regulated ratios). Results: Gdf6a mutants have reduced blue cones and, discovered here, reduced red cones. In combined gdf6a/tbx2b disruption, the loss of gdf6a in heterozygous tbx2b mutants reduced UV cones. Intriguingly, when we disrupted thrβ in gdf6a mutants by using a thrβ morpholino, their combined early disruption revealed a lamination phenotype. Disrupting thrβ activity via expression of a dominant negative thrβ (dnthrβ) at either early or late retinal development had differential outcomes on red cones (reduced abundance), versus UV and blue cones (increased abundance). By using dnthrβ in gdf6a mutants, we revealed that disrupting thrβ activity did not change gdf6a mutant cone phenotypes. Conclusions: Gdf6a loss directly affects blue and red cones and indirectly affects UV cones by increasing sensitivity to additional disruption, such as reduced tbx2b, resulting in fewer UV cones. The effects of thrβ change through photoreceptor development, first promoting red cones and restricting UV cones, and later restricting UV and blue cones. The effects of gdf6a on UV, blue, and red cone development overlap with, but likely supersede, those of thrβ.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".