The frequency and differential pleiotropy of phenotypic nonspecificity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulation of the initiation of transcription by transcription factors is often assumed to be dependent on specific recognition of DNA-binding sites and nonredundant. However, the redundant induction or rescue of a phenotype by transcription factors, phenotypic nonspecificity, challenges these assumptions. To assess the frequency of phenotypic nonspecificity in the rescue of transcription factor phenotypes, seven transcription factor phenotypes (labial, Deformed, Sex combs reduced, Ultrabithorax, fruitless, doublesex, and apterous) were screened for rescue by the expression of 12, or more, nonresident transcription factors. From 308 assessments of rescue by nonresident transcription factors, 18 rescues were identified across 6 of the 7 transcription factor phenotypes. Seventeen of the 18 rescues were with transcription factors that recognize distinct DNA-binding sites relative to the resident transcription factors. All rescues were nonuniform across pleiotropic transcription factor phenotypes suggesting extensive differential pleiotropy of the rescue. Primarily using RNAi to knockdown expression, and with the exceptions of the requirement of Bric a Brac 1 for female abdominal pigmentation and Myb oncogene-like for wing development, no evidence was found for a role of the other 16 nonresident transcription factor in the transcription factor phenotypes assessed. Therefore, these 16 rescues are likely due to functional complementation and not due to the expression of an epistatic function in the developmental/behavioral pathway. Phenotypic nonspecificity is both differentially pleiotropic and frequent, as on average 1 in 10-20 nonresident transcription factors rescue a phenotype. These observations will be important in future considerations of transcription factors function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".