MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mucus secretion and transport in amphioxus larvae: organization and ultrastructure of the food trapping system, and implications for head evolution

2007· article· en· W1574673524 on OpenAlexafffund
Thurston C. Lacalli

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Zoologica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyAnatomyChordateMucusUltrastructureMetamorphosisVertebrateDorsumLarvaCell biologyPaleontologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A low‐to‐medium power transmission electron microscopy survey of the larval head of amphioxus was used to re‐examine the position and constituent cell types of the mucus‐secreting organs involved in feeding. Previously unreported features include cells with fibril‐filled paraciliary processes in the recessed (pit) portion of the preoral organ, which probably assist in generating the mucus string produced by this structure, and the cell responsible for driving the current through the club‐shaped gland, which appears to depend on a mechanism analogous to Archimedes’ screw. Pharyngeal structures are dramatically repositioned during larval growth and metamorphosis. Mapping these changes shows that they are most easily explained if the positioning of the mouth is not directly controlled by the mechanism used to pattern the rest of the ventral pharynx. This accords with the predictions of the dorsoventral inversion hypothesis, which requires that an originally dorsal mouth in the inverted chordate ancestor be secondarily shifted to the ventral surface. It is argued here, on this basis, that the repositioning of the larval mouth in amphioxus, from the left side to the ventral midline, represents a partial recapitulation of past evolutionary events.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ZoologicaSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207