MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908273303 · doi:10.1387/ijdb.180248rl

Contributions of 5’HoxA/D regulation to actinodin evolution and the fin-to-limb transition

2018· review· en· W2908273303 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Lalonde, Marie‐Andrée Akimenko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Developmental Biology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTetrapod (structure)ZebrafishEvolutionary biologyAnatomyFinFish finVertebrateFish <Actinopterygii>GeneGeneticsPaleontologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of tetrapod limbs from paired fish fins comprised major changes to the appendicular dermal and endochondral skeleton. Fish fin rays were lost, and the endochondral bone was modified and elaborated to form three distinct segments common to all tetrapod limbs: the stylopod, the zeugopod and the autopod. Identifying the molecular mechanisms that contributed to these morphological changes presents a unique insight into our own evolutionary history. This review first summarizes previously identified cis-acting regulatory elements for the 5'HoxA/D genes and actinodin1 that were tested using transgenic swap experiments between fish and tetrapods. Conserved regulatory networks provide evidence for a deep homology between distal fin structures and the autopod, while diverging regulatory strategies highlight potential molecular mechanisms that contributed to the fin-to-limb transition. Next, we summarize studies that performed functional analysis to recapitulate fish-tetrapod diverging regulatory strategies and then discuss their potential morphological consequences during limb evolution. Finally, we also discuss here some of the advantages and disadvantages of using zebrafish to study molecular and morphological changes during the fin-to-limb transition.

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)0.001
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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Developmental BiologySame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207