<i>Wnt6</i> and <i>Wnt10</i> regulate spot marking formation in <i>Bombyx mori</i> larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect pigmentation patterns are critical for ecological adaptation and serve as an excellent model for studying the genetic basis of phenotypic diversity. The Wnt family is a conserved group of genes that play crucial roles in various biological processes across species. While Wnt1 and WntA have been extensively characterized for their roles in insect coloration, particularly in Drosophila and butterflies, the functions of other Wnt family members, such as Wnt6 and Wnt10, remain poorly understood. These genes originated from a common ancestor with Wnt1 and are arranged in tandem with it in the genome. In this study, we investigated the roles of Wnt6 and Wnt10 in spot formation in silkworm larvae using 3 spot-marking mutants with similar phenotypes. Through gene expression analysis, RNA interference, and overexpression studies, we discovered that Wnt1, Wnt6, and Wnt10 each regulate spot formation via the Armadillo-dependent canonical Wnt pathway. This highlights their distinct and nonredundant functional attributes despite their common origin and genomic arrangement. Additionally, we identified a uridine diphosphate glycosyltransferase (UDP-glycosyltransferase) gene contributes to caterpillar pigmentation related to the canonical Wnt pathway. Our findings underscore the complexity and conservation of the Wnt signaling pathway in insect coloration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".