MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatiotemporal control of gene expression boundaries using a feedforward loop

2020· article· en· W3018611246 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory T. Reeves, Prasad U. Bandodkar, Hadel Al Asafen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphogenFeed forwardDorsumTranscription factorBiological systemMultiplicative functionComputer scienceBiologyPhysicsComputational biologyGeneMathematicsGeneticsAnatomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feed forward loop (FFL) is commonly observed in several biological networks. The FFL network motif has been mostly been studied with respect to variation of the input signal in time, with only a few studies of FFL activity in a spatially distributed system such as morphogen‐mediated tissue patterning. However, most morphogen gradients also evolve in time. We studied the spatiotemporal behavior of a coherent FFL in two contexts: (1) a generic, oscillating morphogen gradient and (2) the dorsal‐ventral patterning of the early Drosophila embryo by a gradient of the NF‐κB homolog Dorsal with its early target Twist. In both models, we found features in the dynamics of the intermediate node – phase difference and noise filtering – that were largely independent of the parameterization of the models, and thus were functions of the structure of the FFL itself. In the Dorsal gradient model, we also found that the dynamics of Dorsal require maternal pioneering factor Zelda for proper target gene expression. Support or Funding Information During this work, GTR and PB were partially supported by NIH grant (number R21HD092830), and GTR and HA were partially supported by NSF CAREER award (number CBET‐1254344). A . Schematic figure depicting the generic morphogen gradient model. The inset shows the variation of the concentration of the primary transcription factor A in space and time. B . Schematic figure depicting the Dl/Twi/Zld model. The inset shows the variation of the concentration of the primary transcription factor Dl in space and time. The peaks in the Dl gradient amplitude in time correspond to nuclear cycles 11–14. Figure 1

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207