Reply to ‘A refutation to ‘A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we reply to the "Refutation" of Lawrence, Casal, de Cellis, and Morata, who critique our paper presenting evidence for an organizer and compartment boundary subdividing the widely recognized posterior wing compartment of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) and Drosophila, that we called the F-P boundary. Lawrence et al. present no data from the Lepidoptera and while the data that they present from Drosophila melanogaster mitotic clones are intriguing and may be informative with respect to the timing of the activity of the A-P and F-P organizers, considerable ambiguity remains regarding how their data should be interpreted with respect to the proposed wing compartment boundaries. Thus, contrary to their claims, Lawrence et al. have failed to falsify the F-P boundary hypothesis. Additional studies employing mitotic clones labeled with easily detectable markers that do not affect cytoskeletal organization or rates of cell division such as GFP and RFP clones produced by G-Trace or Twin Spot Generator (TSG) may further clarify the number of compartment boundaries in Drosophila wings. At the same time, because Drosophila wings are diminutive and highly modified compared to other insects, we also urge great caution in making generalizations about insect wing development based exclusively on studies in Drosophila.Replying to: Lawrence, P.A., Casal, J., de Celis, J., Morata, G. A refutation to 'A new A-P compartment boundary and organizer in holometabolous insect wings'. Sci. Rep. 9 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42668-y .
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.058 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".