Profiles of Wnt pathway gene expression during tooth morphogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mouse and human genetic studies indicate key roles of the Wnt10a ligand in odontogenesis. Previous studies have identified effectors and regulators of the Wnt signaling pathway actively expressed during key stages of tooth morphogenesis. However, limitations in multiplexing and spatial resolution hindered a more comprehensive analysis of these signaling molecules. Here, profiling of transcriptomes using fluorescent multiplex in situ hybridization and single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) provide robust insight into the synchronized expression patterns of Wnt10a , Dkk1 , and Sost simultaneously during tooth development. First, we identified Wnt10a transcripts restricted to the epithelium at the stage of tooth bud morphogenesis, contrasting that of Sost and Dkk1 localization to the dental mesenchyme. By embryonic day 15.5 (E15.5), a marked shift of Wnt10a expression from dental epithelium to mesenchyme was noted, while Sost and Dkk1 expression remained enriched in the mesenchyme. By postnatal day 0 (P0), co-localization patterns of Wnt10a , Dkk1 , and Sost were observed in both terminally differentiating and secreting odontoblasts of molars and incisors. Interestingly, Wnt10a exhibited robust expression in fully differentiated ameloblasts at the developing cusp tip of both molars and incisors, an observation not previously noted in prior studies. At P7 and 14, after the mineralization of dentin and enamel, Wnt10a expression was limited to odontoblasts. Meanwhile, Wnt modulators showed reduced or absent signals in molars. In contrast, strong signals persisted in ameloblasts (for Wnt10a ) and odontoblasts (for Wnt10a , Sost , and Dkk1 ) towards the proximal end of incisors, near the cervical loop. Our scRNA-seq analysis used CellChat to further contextualize Wnt pathway-mediated communication between cells by examining ligand-receptor interactions among different clusters. The co-localization pattern of Wnt10a , Dkk1 , and Sost in both terminally differentiating and secreting odontoblasts of molars and incisors potentially signifies the crucial ligand-modulator interaction along the gradient of cytodifferentiation starting from each cusp tip towards the apical region. These data provide cell type-specific insight into the role of Wnt ligands and mediators during epithelial-mesenchymal interactions in odontogenesis.
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".