Mechanisms of gap gene expression canalization in the Drosophila blastoderm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Extensive variation in early gap gene expression in the <it>Drosophila </it>blastoderm is reduced over time because of gap gene cross regulation. This phenomenon is a manifestation of canalization, the ability of an organism to produce a consistent phenotype despite variations in genotype or environment. The canalization of gap gene expression can be understood as arising from the actions of attractors in the gap gene dynamical system.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In order to better understand the processes of developmental robustness and canalization in the early <it>Drosophila </it>embryo, we investigated the dynamical effects of varying spatial profiles of Bicoid protein concentration on the formation of the expression border of the gap gene <it>hunchback</it>. At several positions on the anterior-posterior axis of the embryo, we analyzed attractors and their basins of attraction in a dynamical model describing expression of four gap genes with the Bicoid concentration profile accounted as a given input in the model equations. This model was tested against a family of Bicoid gradients obtained from individual embryos. These gradients were normalized by two independent methods, which are based on distinct biological hypotheses and provide different magnitudes for Bicoid spatial variability. We showed how the border formation is dictated by the biological initial conditions (the concentration gradient of maternal Hunchback protein) being attracted to specific attracting sets in a local vicinity of the border. Different types of these attracting sets (point attractors or one dimensional attracting manifolds) define several possible mechanisms of border formation. The <it>hunchback </it>border formation is associated with intersection of the spatial gradient of the maternal Hunchback protein and a boundary between the attraction basins of two different point attractors. We demonstrated how the positional variability for <it>hunchback </it>is related to the corresponding variability of the basin boundaries. The observed reduction in variability of the <it>hunchback </it>gene expression can be accounted for by specific geometrical properties of the basin boundaries.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We clarified the mechanisms of gap gene expression canalization in early <it>Drosophila </it>embryos. These mechanisms were specified in the case of <it>hunchback </it>in well defined terms of the dynamical system theory.</p

Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East

We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000 and 1,400 BC, from Natufian hunter–gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages before their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter–gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter–gatherers of Europe to greatly reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those of Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia

Toward a General Theory of Standards of Proof

Which standard of proof is best for a particular type of case This deceptively simple question has been much discussed but the current state of understanding is unsatisfactory Statisticians posed a general answer philosophers and others launched an assault on that answer practically oriented scholars draw on both strains unsystematically and courts generally offer little or no reasoning for their decisions The goal of this article is to outline a systematic and complete justification for selecting one probabilistic standard of proof over another By training a microscope on one small corner of the law incapacity will contests this article demonstrates the relevance of old factors identifies several new factors and integrates the factors into an approach that will hopefully guide future inquiry One important implication is that the choice of proof standard will almost necessarily be tentative too much is unknown or unknowabl