Genomic screening of fish‐specific genes in gnathostomes and their functions in fin development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we comprehensively searched for fish-specific genes in gnathostomes that contribute to development of the fin, a fish-specific trait. Many previous reports suggested that animal group-specific genes are often important for group-specific traits. Clarifying the roles of fish-specific genes in fin development of gnathostomes, for example, can help elucidate the mechanisms underlying the formation of this trait. We first identified 91 fish-specific genes in gnathostomes by comparing the gene repertoire in 16 fish and 35 tetrapod species. RNA-seq analysis narrowed down the 91 candidates to 33 genes that were expressed in the developing pectoral fin. We analyzed the functions of approximately half of the candidate genes by loss-of-function analysis in zebrafish. We found that some of the fish-specific and fin development-related genes, including fgf24 and and1/and2, play roles in fin development. In particular, the newly identified fish-specific gene qkia is expressed in the developing fin muscle and contributes to muscle morphogenesis in the pectoral fin as well as body trunk. These results indicate that the strategy of identifying animal group-specific genes is functional and useful. The methods applied here could be used in future studies to identify trait-associated genes in other animal groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".