The Influence of Brain-Skull Interactions on the Development of the Amphibian Skull
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tetrapod skull has evolved in response to various pressures over its long evolutionary history. One such pressure is the expansion of the cerebral hemispheres of the brain, which has been shown to drive physical changes in the craniofacial skeleton in certain lineages. The molecular basis of these brain-skull interactions remains incompletely understood, though studies indicate that key to this relationship is the range of morphogenetic signals originating from signaling sources within the forebrain. Knockdown experiments in mouse and chick have been conducted to eliminate these signals and study the resulting morphology; however, interrupting gene expression may have off-target effects. An alternative method of eliminating local signals is tissue removal/ablation. To better understand the role of the forebrain in shaping cranial development, forebrain removal experiments were conducted in Xenopus laevis, a representative of the poorly studied amphibians, to study the resulting morphology of the skull. To facilitate these comparisons, a detailed internal staging guide for X. laevis was developed, expanding on the widely used Nieuwkoop and Faber series. Next, it was found that removal of forebrain tissue in early tailbud embryos resulted in craniofacial deformities, as well as a disruption of olfactory and optic sensory development. Potential biochemical causes of these results are discussed within the context of knowledge from amniote systems. These findings indicate that the role of the forebrain in craniofacial development seen in amniotes is likely conserved in X. laevis, providing vital information for our understanding of tetrapod skull evolution.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".