Formal proof of the requirement of MESP1 and MESP2 in mesoderm specification and their transcriptional control via specific enhancers in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MESP1 and MESP2 are transcriptional factors involved in mesoderm specification, somite boundary formation and somite polarity regulation. However, Mesp quadruple mutant zebrafish displayed only abnormal somite polarity without mesoderm specification defects. In order to re-evaluate Mesp1/Mesp2 mutants in mice, Mesp1 and Mesp2 single knockouts (KOs), and a Mesp1/Mesp2 double KO were established using genome-editing techniques without introducing selection markers commonly used before. The Mesp1/Mesp2 double KO embryos exhibited markedly severe mesoderm formation defects that were similar to the previously reported Mesp1/Mesp2 double KO embryos, indicating species differences in the function of MESP family proteins. However, the Mesp1 KO did not display any phenotype, including heart formation defects, which have been reported previously. We noted upregulation of Mesp2 in the Mesp1 KO embryos, suggesting that MESP2 rescues the loss of MESP1 in mesoderm specification. We also found that Mesp1 and Mesp2 expression in the early mesoderm is regulated by the cooperation of two independent enhancers containing T-box- and TCF/Lef-binding sites. Deletion of both enhancers caused the downregulation of both genes, resulting in heart formation defects. This study suggests dose-dependent roles of MESP1 and MESP2 in early mesoderm formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".