MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395029976 · doi:10.1093/gbe/evae082

Conserved Genes in Highly Regenerative Metazoans Are Associated with Planarian Regeneration

2024· article· en· W4395029976 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shankar C. R. R. Chereddy, Takashi Makino

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Biology and Evolution · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBilateriaBiologyRegeneration (biology)CnidariaPlanarianMost recent common ancestorEvolutionary biologyAnnelidPlanariaGenePhylogeneticsGeneticsAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metazoan species depict a wide spectrum of regeneration ability which calls into question the evolutionary origins of the underlying processes. Since species with high regeneration ability are widely distributed throughout metazoans, there is a possibility that the metazoan ancestor had an underlying common molecular mechanism. Early metazoans like sponges possess high regenerative ability, but, due to the large differences they have with Cnidaria and Bilateria regarding symmetry and neuronal systems, it can be inferred that this regenerative ability is different. We hypothesized that the last common ancestor of Cnidaria and Bilateria possessed remarkable regenerative ability which was lost during evolution. We separated Cnidaria and Bilateria into three classes possessing whole-body regenerating, high regenerative ability, and low regenerative ability. Using a multiway BLAST and gene phylogeny approach, we identified genes conserved in whole-body regenerating species and lost in low regenerative ability species and labeled them Cnidaria and Bilaterian regeneration genes. Through transcription factor analysis, we identified that Cnidaria and Bilaterian regeneration genes were associated with an overabundance of homeodomain regulatory elements. RNA interference of Cnidaria and Bilaterian regeneration genes resulted in loss of regeneration phenotype for HRJDa, HRJDb, DUF21, DISP3, and ARMR genes. We observed that DUF21 knockdown was highly lethal in the early stages of regeneration indicating a potential role in wound response. Also, HRJDa, HRJDb, DISP3, and ARMR knockdown showed loss of regeneration phenotype after second amputation. The results strongly correlate with their respective RNA-seq profiles. We propose that Cnidaria and Bilaterian regeneration genes play a major role in regeneration across highly regenerative Cnidaria and Bilateria.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome Biology and EvolutionSame topicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207