MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093064189 · doi:10.1139/gen-2020-0034

Identification of enhancers that drive the spatially restricted expression of <i>Vsx1</i> and <i>Rx</i> in the outer proliferation center of the developing <i>Drosophila</i> optic lobe

2020· article· en· W3093064189 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ishrat Maliha Islam, June Ng, Priscilla Valentino, Ted Erclik

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhancerBiologyNeuroblastCell biologyTranscription factorEnhancer trapGeneticsGeneTranscription (linguistics)Neurogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combinatorial spatial and temporal patterning of stem cells is a powerful mechanism for the generation of neural diversity in insect and vertebrate nervous systems. In the developing Drosophila medulla, the neural stem cells of the outer proliferation center (OPC) are spatially patterned by the mutually exclusive expression of three homeobox transcription factors: Vsx1 in the center of the OPC crescent (cOPC), Optix in the main arms (mOPC), and Rx in the posterior tips (pOPC). These spatial factors act together with a temporal cascade of transcription factors in OPC neuroblasts to specify the greater than 80 medulla cell types. Here, we identify the enhancers that are sufficient to drive the spatially restricted expression of the Vsx1 and Rx genes in the OPC. We show that removal of the cOPC enhancer in the Muddled inversion mutant leads to the loss of Vsx1 expression in the cOPC. Analysis of the evolutionarily conserved sequences within these enhancers suggests that direct repression by Optix may restrict the expression of Vsx1 and Rx to the cOPC and pOPC, respectively.

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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207