MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978161840 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.120

Getting out of an egg: Merging of tooth germs to create an egg tooth in the snake

2019· article· en· W2978161840 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan M. Fons, Marcia Gaete, Oldřich Zahradníček, Marie Landová, Hussein Bandali, Eraqi R. Khannoon, Joy M. Richman, Marcela Buchtová, Abigail S. Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsBiologyAnatomyZoologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The egg tooth is a vital structure allowing hatchlings to escape from the egg. In squamates (snakes and lizards), the egg tooth is a real tooth that develops within the oral cavity at the top of the upper jaw. Most squamates have a single large midline egg tooth at hatching, but a few families, such as Gekkonidae, have two egg teeth. In snakes the egg tooth is significantly larger than the rest of the dentition and is one of the first teeth to develop. RESULTS: We follow the development of the egg tooth in four snake species and show that the single egg tooth is formed by two tooth germs. These two tooth germs are united at the midline and grow together to produce a single tooth. In culture, this merging can be perturbed to give rise to separate smaller teeth, confirming the potential of the developing egg tooth to form two teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Our data agrees with previous hypotheses that during evolution one potential mechanism to generate a large tooth is through congrescence of multiple tooth germs and suggests that the ancestors of snakes could have had two egg teeth.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207