Effects of hypoxia‐induced gill remodelling on the innervation and distribution of ionocytes in the gill of goldfish, <i>Carassius auratus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of an interlamellar cell mass (ILCM) on the gills of goldfish acclimated to 7°C leads to preferential distribution of branchial ionocytes to the distal edges of the ILCM, where they are likely to remain in contact with the water and hence remain functional. Upon exposure to hypoxia, the ILCM retracts, and the ionocytes become localized to the lamellar surfaces and on the filament epithelium, owing to their migration and the differentiation of new ionocytes from progenitor cells. Here we demonstrate that the majority of the ionocytes receive neuronal innervation, which led us to assess the consequences of ionocyte migration and differentiation during hypoxic gill remodelling on the pattern and extent of ionocyte neuronal innervation. Normoxic 7°C goldfish (ILCM present) possessed significantly greater numbers of ionocytes/mm(2) (951.2 ± 94.3) than their 25°C conspecifics (ILCM absent; 363.1 ± 49.6) but a statistically lower percentage of innervated ionocytes (83.1% ± 1.0% compared with 87.8% ± 1.3%). After 1 week of exposure of goldfish to hypoxia, the pool of branchial ionocytes was composed largely of pre-existing migrating cells (555.6 ± 38.1/mm(2)) and to a lesser extent newly formed ionocytes (226.7 ± 15.1/mm(2)). The percentage of new (relative to pre-existing) ionocytes remained relatively constant (at ∼30%) after 1 or 2 weeks of normoxic recovery. After hypoxia, pre-existing ionocytes expressed a greater percentage of innervation than newly formed ionocytes in all treatment groups; however, their percentage innervation steadily decreased over 2 weeks of normoxic recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".