Evolution of Transcriptional Regulation of Duplicated Fatty Acid‐Binding Protein Genes by PPARs in Zebrafish: a Pharmacological Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duplication of genes is thought to facilitate increasing organismal complexity. Duplicated genes may be retained in the genome if one of the duplicates acquires a novel function, or the functions of the ancestral gene are subdivided between the duplicates. A likely process for the retention of duplicates is the loss or gain of regulatory elements in the promoters of duplicated genes. The objective of this study was to explore the evolution of gene promoters using the multigene family of fatty acid‐binding proteins (fabp) in zebrafish. Previous studies had implicated the peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptors (PPARs) in the regulation of some fabp genes. The promoters of the zebrafish fabp1a , fabp1b.1 and fabp1b.2 genes, duplicated by a whole genome duplication (f abp1a and ancestral fabp1b ) followed by a tandem gene duplication ( fabp1b.1 and fabp1b.2 ), were cloned into firefly luciferase reporter plasmids, transfected into HEK cells, and tested in the presence of PPARα‐ and PPARγ‐selective agonists. Expression of these genes was further analyzed by qRT‐PCR in explant cultures of zebrafish liver and intestine treated with PPAR agonists. fabp1a expression was selectively increased by PPARα‐agonism in HEK cells and intestine. fabp1b.1 expression was selectively increased by PPARγ‐agonism in HEK cells and liver. fabp1b.2 promoter activity was not induced by PPAR modulation. The differential PPAR regulation of the duplicated fabp1 genes provide evidence of divergence of regulatory elements in these gene promoters, which may account for the retention of the duplicated fabp1 genes in the zebrafish genome. Funding from NSERC, CIHR, and Dalhousie University.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".