Mechanistic Insights into Axenfeld–Rieger Syndrome from Zebrafish foxc1 and pitx2 Mutants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Axenfeld–Rieger syndrome (ARS) encompasses a group of developmental disorders that affect the anterior segment of the eye, as well as systemic developmental defects in some patients. Malformation of the ocular anterior segment often leads to secondary glaucoma, while some patients also present with cardiovascular malformations, craniofacial and dental abnormalities and additional periumbilical skin. Genes that encode two transcription factors, FOXC1 and PITX2, account for almost half of known cases, while the genetic lesions in the remaining cases remain unresolved. Given the genetic similarity between zebrafish and humans, as well as robust antisense inhibition and gene editing technologies available for use in these animals, loss of function zebrafish models for ARS have been created and shed light on the mechanism(s) whereby mutations in these two transcription factors cause such a wide array of developmental phenotypes. This review summarizes the published phenotypes in zebrafish foxc1 and pitx2 loss of function models and discusses possible mechanisms that may be used to target pharmaceutical development and therapeutic interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".