MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic expression profiles during development of placodes in the embryonic chicken eye

2020· article· en· W3017077695 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamara A. Franz‐Odendaal, Jennifer L. Giffin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSonic hedgehogBiologyFGF10Fibroblast growth factorWnt signaling pathwayHedgehogMesenchymeMorphogenEndodermCell biologyEnhancerBone morphogenetic protein 4Gene expressionEmbryonic stem cellGeneticsSignal transductionGeneReceptorEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conjunctival epithelium of the chicken eye develops a series of placodes beginning at embryonic day 6.5. These placodes develop into conjunctival papillae over the course of 1.5 days before disappearing. These transient structures are responsible for inducing the underlying mesenchyme to develop into a ring of scleral ossicles. Here we assess the gene expression patterns of five major signaling pathways known to be involved in the development of other epithelial appendages, namely the WNT/β‐catenin, bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), ectodysplasin (EDA), fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and hedgehog (HH) pathways. Our comprehensive qPCR analyses of distinct regions of the eye, at different time points, enabled us to assess multiple gene expression patterns. Our data show that FGF1, FGF20, sonic hedgehog (SHH), ectodysplasin receptor (EDAR) and BMP4 are amongst the most highly upregulated genes identified in the system. EDAR, FGF20 and SHH were also significantly different across different regions of the eye and over developmental time within specific regions. Correlation analyses among relative normalized gene expression values revealed the strongest correlation between EDA and lymphoid enhancer factor‐1 (LEF1) and between FGF2 and FGF10. The enhanced sensitivity of qPCR reveals a more detailed signaling pattern than previously known. The dynamic expression patterns uncovered here are consistent with a conserved patterning signaling network observed in a diverse range of other placodes, including hair follicles and feather buds. Support or Funding Information This study was funded by the Natural 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207