MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Egg Tooth Morphogenesis in the Leopard Gecko: A Model for Dental Size Variation

2017· article· en· W2949108247 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kirstin S. Brink, Theresa M. Grieco, Joy M. Richman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsBiologyDentitionGeckoCheek teethDental laminaMolarAnatomyDentistryZoologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tooth size can vary along a tooth row in an individual organism, and can also change through time as new teeth replace erupted ones. Although much is known about morphoregulation of the dentition in mammals, little is known about what controls tooth size and shape in other heterodont amniotes. In this study, we examine tooth development through growth in the leopard gecko Eublepharis macularis in order to understand the timing of tooth mineralization and its contribution to sizing differences in teeth. The embryonic leopard gecko has greatly enlarged, anteriorly oriented egg teeth that are shed a few days after hatching, and show a dramatic phenotype for studying size variation in an organ. Typical tooth replacement in polyphyodont animals involves the replacement of a small tooth with a larger tooth through growth, whereas in the hatchling leopard gecko several smaller teeth replace the very large egg tooth. In this study, we aimed to: 1) quantify differences in tooth size at the very earliest stages of tooth development; and 2) visualize the mineralization pattern in egg and marginal teeth in ovo. An understanding of the timing and process of tooth mineralization in the leopard gecko will serve as a framework to address larger questions of development and the control of shape and size of teeth, especially when considering variation in heterodont dentitions in polyphyodont animals. To document the development of the egg tooth and marginal teeth, 13 specimens were fixed at different developmental stages: 6 weeks before hatching to hatching, before the egg teeth were shed. Specimens were examined histologically with and without decalcification, and cells in developing tooth buds were counted as a proxy for the size of the tooth germ. In separate experiments, embryos were injected with two fluorescent dyes, calcein and xylenol orange, 5 days apart in ovo to mark teeth that were actively mineralizing. The entire tooth row was examined with Optical Projection Tomography (OPT) to view the fluorescent mineralization fronts in 3D. Subsequently, specimens were stained with phosphotungstic acid to enhance contrast and micro CT scanned to observe the morphology of the dental lamina and egg teeth at hatching. Results show that at stage 33 (~14 days post oviposition) the egg tooth is at the cap stage, whereas the rest of the functional teeth are at bud stage or earlier. The dental placode for the egg tooth has a higher cell count than those of the marginal teeth. The fluorescent mineralization fronts indicate that the egg tooth remains in the histogenesis phase for a longer period of time than the marginal teeth, and that mineralization is asymmetrical in the last stages of embryonic growth to create the forward curvature of the tooth. The increased size of the egg tooth is due in part to early initiation and a greater number of cells allocated to the dental placode. Further experiments will determine whether other mechanisms such as increased proliferation and accelerated differentiation are involved in regulating tooth organ size. Support or Funding Information Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Killam Postdoctoral Fellowship, National Institutes of Health, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→