Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the mechanism of wing size determination in fly development

Open access
Hufnagel, Lars, Teleman, Aurelio A., Rouault, Hervé, Cohen, Stephen M., Shraiman, Boris I.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

A fundamental and unresolved problem in animal development is the question of how a growing tissue knows when it has achieved its correct final size. A widely held view suggests that this process is controlled by morphogen gradients, which adapt to tissue size and become flatter as tissue grows, leading eventually to growth arrest. Here, we present evidence that the decapentaplegic (Dpp) morphogen distribution in the developing Drosophila wing imaginal disk does not adapt to disk size. We measure the distribution of a functional Dpp-GFP transgene and the Dpp signal transduced by phospho-Mad and show that the characteristic length scale of the Dpp profile remains approximately constant during growth. This finding suggests an alternative scenario of size determination, where disk size is determined relative to the fixed morphogen distribution by a certain threshold level of morphogen required for growth. We propose that when disk boundary reaches the threshold the arrest of cell proliferation throughout the disk is induced by mechanical stress in the tissue. Mechanical stress is expected to arise from the nonuniformity of morphogen distribution that drives growth. This stress, through a negative feedback on growth, can compensate for the nonuniformity of morphogen, achieving uniform growth with the rate that vanishes when disk boundary reaches the threshold. The mechanism is demonstrated through computer simulations of a tissue growth model that identifies the key assumptions and testable predictions. This analysis provides an alternative hypothesis for the size determination process. Novel experimental approaches will be needed to test this model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0607134104

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Hufnagel, L., Teleman, A. A., Rouault, H., Cohen, S. M., & Shraiman, B. I.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-03-06
Volume
104
Issue
10
Pages
3835-3840
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2061220010
Cited by
373
References
2
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the mechanism of wing size determination in fly development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0607134104
The paper
Hufnagel, L., Teleman, A. A., Rouault, H., Cohen, S. M., & Shraiman, B. I. (2007). On the mechanism of wing size determination in fly development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607134104

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.