Invivo and systematic analysis of random multigenic deletions associated with human diseases during epithelial morphogenesis in Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Random loss of multigenic loci on chromosomes, a crucial drive for evolution, occurs frequently in all living organisms. Analysis of such chromosomal disruption and understanding the consequences of their impact on the growth and development of multicellular organisms is challenging. In this report, we have addressed this issue using invivo mosaic analysis of deficiency lines in Drosophila. Genes on fly deficiency lines were compared with human orthologs for their implications in disease development during cytoskeletal processes and epithelial morphogenesis. The cytoskeletal phenotypes from the fly has been utilized to predict the function of human orthologs. In addition, as these Drosophila deficiency lines are equivalent to human microdeletions, based on the clonal behaviour and phenotypes generated, a systematic analysis has been carried out to establish the critical loci that correspond to Microdeletion Syndromes and Mendelian Disorders in humans. Further we have drawn the synteny that exists between these chromosomes and have identified critical region corresponding to defects. A few potential candidates that might have an implication in epithelial morphogenesis are also identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".