MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406404475 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.765

Assessing candidate <scp>DLX</scp>‐regulated genes in the first pharyngeal arch of chick embryos

2025· article· en· W4406404475 on OpenAlexafffund
Afshan Sohail, Olivia Nicoll, Andrew J. Bendall

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGeneDLX5MorphogenesisGeneticsEmbryoTranscription factorGene regulatory networkGene expressionAnatomyCell biologyHomeobox

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Insights into the development and evolution of asymmetrical jaws will require an understanding of the gene regulatory networks that underpin the differential morphogenesis of the maxillary and mandibular domains of the first pharyngeal arch in a variety of gnathostomes. While a robust relationship has been demonstrated between jaw patterning and the Endothelin-Dlx gene axis, much less is known of the next level of genes in the jaw patterning hierarchy. RESULTS: Several genes, whose expression depends on Dlx5 and/or Dlx6, have been identified in mice. Here, we examined the expression patterns of the chick orthologues of some of those genes, namely GSC, PITX1, HAND2, and GBX2, and tested their dependence on endothelin signaling to assess whether there is a conserved regulatory relationship between those genes in the chick embryo. To further validate these genes as direct DLX targets, we identified conserved non-coding sequences containing candidate DLX binding motifs and demonstrated DLX-responsiveness in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence presented in this study combines to support the hypothesis that these four genes are direct targets of DLX transcription factors in the lower jaw-forming tissue.

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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207