MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rebooting the Zahnreihen: Analysis of the Jaw‐wide Patterning cues in the Adult Gecko Dentition

2018· article· en· W3177135236 on OpenAlexafffund
Joy M. Richman, Theresa M. Grieco, Kirstin S. Brink

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDental laminaEnucleationDentitionPeriodontiumDentistryAnatomyOrthodonticsLaminaMedicineBiologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike mammals, it is common for reptiles to replace their teeth throughout life. Through exploring the mechanisms of tooth replacement, particularly in adult reptiles we will learn about the cells and molecules that are required for the regeneration of the dentition. Wholemount preparations, x-rays and μCT scans of most lizards show that each functional tooth appears to line up with a series of unerupted teeth that are in progressively less mature stages of development going posteriorly (Zahnreihen). The position of the Zahnreihen is at approximately 147° to the jaw margin. The next teeth that are fated to replace a functional tooth do not appear in the mouth until they have reached a threshold size and have moved into position. It has been hypothesized that the unerupted teeth secrete factors that regulate the pace of tooth formation and spacing. All unerupted teeth are connected to each other via a dental lamina that extends around the jaw, extending deep into the soft tissue lingual to the functional teeth. Using an unbiased, surgical approach we asked whether there were signals emanating from the unerupted teeth and dental lamina. We carried out 4 types of surgeries in defined regions: enucleation of unerupted teeth with minimal disruption of the dental lamina, enucleation plus scrambling of the dental lamina, enucleation plus chemical cauterization of remaining epithelium or a sham control. Animals were analyzed at 7d, 14d, or 1–8 months. The macroscopic and microscopic phenotypes confirmed that teeth were removed successfully and that recovery was taking place except when cauterization was carried out. There was an initial wave of apoptosis that tapered off by 5 days. Next a spike in proliferation occurred in both torn epithelium and surrounding mesenchyme that lasted for at least 1 week. In long term followup we found that simple tooth removal delays but does not impact overall patterning. In contrast, cauterization of the dental lamina causes a block in tooth formation that does not recover from the cut edges (up to 8 months follow-up). The mesenchyme on its own is completely unable to induce new teeth from other types of epithelia such as oral mucosa or glandular epithelium. The dental epithelium is therefore instructive and is the key tissue that must be present for new teeth to form. Molecular readouts that will be presented include the location of putative stem cells (BrdU label retention, SOX2 antibody staining), changes in gene expression (in situs and RNAseq) and evidence of polarity of the epithelium being re-established (in situs). This data will be used to map out the sequence of recovery in dental epithelium leading to reestablishment of the Zahnreihen. Support or Funding Information Studies were supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2016-05477) to JMR. TMG was supported by an NIH F32 Postdoctoral Fellowship (F32DE024948). KB is supported by Killam and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research postdoctoral fellowships. Palatal view of an adult gecko with approximately 40 functional teeth in each quadrant. Each marginal tooth defines the start of a Zahnreihen (diagonal row of unerupted teeth). Not shown is the continuous dental lamina to which all teeth are attached. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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