MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309758486 · doi:10.1101/2022.11.17.513312

Evolutionarily conserved waves of tooth replacement in the gecko are dependent on local signaling

2022· preprint· en· W4309758486 on OpenAlexafffund
Kirstin S. Brink, Eric N. Cytrynbaum, Theresa M. Grieco, Joaquin I Henriquez, Anna Zhitnitsky, Joy M. Richman

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsStemcell TechnologiesUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam TrustsNational Institutes of HealthCentral European Institute of TechnologyMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDentitionBiologyMaxillary central incisorOrthodonticsTooth eruptionDentistryPosterior teethAnatomyMolarPaleontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The fossil record contains dinosaur jaws with rows of unerupted successional teeth that are arranged in a variety of elegant patterns. The remnants of these patterns are visible in modern dentate reptiles but the mechanism for generating and maintaining these rows of teeth is unknown. The biology underlying the tooth replacement pattern was hypothesized to either be stimuli transmitted across tooth families in the jaws (Edmund) or secretion of local inhibitory molecules that would stagger development of adjacent tooth families (Osborn). To test these hypotheses and generate new ones, we completed a study on 6 treated adult geckos in which one side of the jaw had teeth removed. Wax bites were used to record the maxillary teeth 2 times a week. Tooth presence or absence was recorded and transformed mathematically. The time between eruption at each tooth position was measured as was the relative phase compared to the immediate adjacent teeth over successive bites. The period between eruption events at each tooth position was approximately 30 days with some lengthening over time. The average relative phase showed there was a tilt in the data that fit the observation that alternating teeth were being shed. This tilt was opposite on the left and right sides of the jaw. The asymmetry of the right and left sides was consistent across the dentition. After plucking, the pattern recovers after 3 periods fitting with the consistent finding that there are 3 teeth in each tooth family. Ablated areas did not recover tooth formation even after 14 months. The plucked animals showed evidence of fixed, local signaling that restores the pattern. Two models based on Osborn’s concept of a “zone of inhibition” deviate from the observed data. The ablated animals show no change in patterns of tooth eruption anterior and posterior to the gap. Thus there is no support for the Wave stimulus theory of Edmund. Finally, we propose a new Phase Inhibition Model. This model assumes fixed initiation sites at which teeth are initiated at some phase within a month-long cycle and that, as a tooth is initiated, the cycles of nearby initiation sites are inhibited in their progress. This inhibition causes nearest neighbours to erupt in anti-synchrony. This model best maintained the tilt, spacing timing of the real biological data. Mathematical modeling was sensitive enough to measure the normal developmental instability and the resilience of the gecko to restore homeostasis after tooth removal.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207