Assessing candidate <scp>DLX</scp>‐regulated genes in the first pharyngeal arch of chick embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".