Posted on July 13, 2009 by Oldcola
This is a pre-cteappv Oops and I start wondering how Fleury manage to find journals with so poor review process as to let go to press such mistakes.
This one is from An Elasto-Plastic Model of Avian Gastrulation, Vincent Fleury, Organogenesis 2:1, 6-16, 2005.
Filed under: Oops! | Leave a comment »
Posted on July 11, 2009 by Oldcola
I’m greek and during my young years I was feed a lot of geometry. You know how it is, national pride for the ancestors, especially under a military junta. So, I’m quite sensible when one presents geometrical problems incorrectly.
My very first objection concerning Fleury’s model1 was that he described the epiblast cells as contained between two extracellular membranes. When I pointed that his only response was that if there is a single basal membrane that doesn’t affect his model, the flow would be just faster. From that point on you can’t trust the guy with any description.
Filed under: Notes, Oops! | 4 Comments »
Posted on June 30, 2009 by Oldcola
By the way “I can has L2/R2″ is not a sentence
Aha! this is not a sentence. I was waiting for this one since I read the paper.
For Dr Fleury first step here, and second one here, both necessary to get the flavor.
For everybody else, a puzzle served below [p22 col2 §1]:
The significance of the reversed flexion of the hindlimb in 10% of the experiments reported in reference  is unclear since the electroporation experiment used to insert Tbx5 in the hindplate prior to hindlimb growth has a polarity in itself. If this experiment would be confirmed, it would be an uncommon case of a chirality, directly induced by a scalar non-chiral field. This would suggest that Tbx5 codes for a chiral molecule.
Maybe Dr Fleury will take the time to provide the solution. Hopefully this will not end as “I can has chirality??“.
While he is visiting lolcats and fails to have an insight about lolchickens I’ll give it a try to prepare a question for him.
Filed under: lol, Oops! | Tagged: FSI | Leave a comment »
Posted on June 28, 2009 by Oldcola
[p 20, col 2, §3]
Genetic analysis, in relation to evolutionary issues, shows that actually, genes for limbs and for tails are similar, and many are identical ( and references above31, Ref. ). Also, genes which serve to form the true limb skeleton, are actually present in fish fins, in which such skeletal elements are absent  (Fig. 21).
31 “Not only are the same Hox genes expressed in both developing appendages but they are expressed in identical spatial and temporal patterns” in reference .
Filed under: Oops! | 1 Comment »
Posted on June 22, 2009 by Oldcola
Nevertheless, when folds growth is prolonged by evolution, it is so in the direction of the existing fold. Stated otherwise, if the appearance of a fold corresponds to crossing of a generic biomechanical threshold for folding, one may expect that the fold is itself stable in an open set of parameters, such that, “conserving the scaffold”, as stated by Darwin, a fold may elongate or shorten during evolution. This is to say that the more or less elongated aspect of rays in ﬁns is somewhat predictable, it suﬃces to push forward the pattern of ﬁsh bones in the rays. This is also true of other edge-like organs, such as ears, nostrils or lips, which are well known to be observed in nature with almost “arbitrary” lengths, a word often used by Darwin.
Filed under: Oops! | 2 Comments »
Posted on June 20, 2009 by Oldcola
Posted on June 19, 2009 by Oldcola
[…] especially, pentadactily has been related to the expression of Hoxd genes .
where  is: A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin & Farish A. Jenkins Jr, Nature Vol 440, 6 April 2006, doi:10.1038/nature04639.
No mention of any Hox gene in the paper, Fleury should seek for the right reference in his notes.
Filed under: Oops! | 1 Comment »