MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Embryonic origins of novelty and constraint in the amniote upper jaw

2013· article· en· W3169542491 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan M. Young, Diane Hu, Alexis Lainoff, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Ralph Marcucio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmnioteBiologyPrimordiumEvolutionary biologyLineage (genetic)Evolutionary developmental biologyAnatomyVertebrateGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammals, birds, and reptiles exhibit remarkable diversity in the shape, size, and relative proportions of the upper jaw. Determining when these differences are generated is critical to our understanding of how developmental mechanisms impact evolutionary diversification. Here we demonstrate that all major amniote lineages share a common pattern of embryonic shape and growth up until fusion of the facial primordia. Subsequent to fusion, avian and non‐avian lineages diverge in Sonic hedgehog (SHH) signaling domain expression, leading to lineage‐specific alterations in facial proportions. As a result, the avian upper jaw is composed primarily of frontonasal derivatives, while in non‐avian amniotes the maxillary derivatives comprise the largest proportion of the jaw, in both cases regardless of overall snout length. Experimental manipulation of pre and post‐fusion SHH‐domains in avians phenocopies the proportions of non‐avian amniote upper jaws. This developmental sequence of early conservation followed by later diversification demonstrates that fusion of the facial primordia is a critical prerequisite to evolutionary divergence of the upper jaw, while regulation of SHH‐signaling mediated postfusion growth processes is an important mechanism by which evolutionary variation in jaw shape is generated.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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