Expression of SPARC and the osteopontin‐like protein during skeletal development in the cichlid fish <i>Oreochromis mossambicus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bones are mainly composed of calcium hydroxyapatite and a proteinous matrix. In this study, we focus on the bone matrix proteins, the fish osteopontin orthologous protein (osteopontin-like protein; OP-L) and SPARC, because the current knowledge regarding their expression is fragmentary or contradictory. RESULTS: We first provide a comprehensive and detailed description of skeletal development in the cichlid fish Oreochromis mossambicus. Following this, we analyzed the expression pattern of OP-L and SPARC in detail during development. OP-L expression was only found in tissues that undergo ossification (i.e., developing bones and teeth). Furthermore, we show that there is a fundamental difference in cartilage formation of the splanchnocranium and all other cartilages, concerning SPARC expression. Significantly, we show that the initial calcification of cranial bones occurs simultaneously with the expression of OP-L and SPARC in the osteoblast-like cells, which appear early in development. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in SPARC expression during chondrogenesis of the splanchnocranium is likely based on its different evolutionary history compared with the dermatocranium and chondrocranium. Moreover, our results suggest a co-occurrence of the initial calcium deposition and bone matrix protein expression during osteogenesis. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of fish skeletal development and evolution.
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".