MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392878081 · doi:10.1016/j.psj.2024.103672

Research Note: SOCS2 contributes to reduction of the third digit during development of the chicken forelimb

2024· article· en· W4392878081 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao‐Ping Li, Shan-Shan Li, Shibin Bai, Yining Tang, Ziqiu Jia, Jialong Yin, Xiaona Xu, Junpeng Zhang, David M. Irwin, Shuyi Zhang, Zhe Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLiaoning Revitalization Talents Program
KeywordsSOCS2BiologyForelimbLimb developmentIn situ hybridizationGeneCell biologyGeneticsGene expressionSuppressorAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the avian wing pattern has been the subject of heated debate due to its special shape. The Suppressor of cytokine signaling 2 (SOCS2) gene encodes a negative regulator of growth hormone (GH) signaling and bone growth and is known to be strongly expressed in the third digit of chicken forelimbs. These observations suggest that SOCS2 might regulate the morphology of the avian wing, however, the function of SOCS2 in avian limb development remains unknown. Here, we reexamined SOCS2 expression in successive developmental stages of chicken limb development by in situ hybridization (ISH) and describe extended expression from the posterior of the stypolod to the third digit of the forelimbs. We used the RCAS avian retrovirus to overexpress SOCS2 in the developing chicken limb buds, which resulted in reduced or malformed chicken wings while hindlimbs developed normally. Transcriptome sequencing (mRNA-Seq) revealed changes in expression of genes known to be associated with growth and development in forelimbs with overexpressed SOCS2. This study highlights a pivotal role for SOCS2 during the development of the wing in the chicken and provides new insight into molecular mechanisms regulating avian limb development.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207