Distinct seawater and freshwater types of chloride cells in killifish,<i>Fundulus heteroclitus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological and morphological differences between killifish adapted to seawater (SW) and fresh water (FW) were examined with special reference to chloride cells. There was no difference in plasma osmolality between SW- and FW-adapted fish, reflecting their euryhalinity. A rich population of chloride cells was detected in whole-mount preparations of the gills and opercular membrane from SW- and FW-adapted fish. There was no difference between SW- and FW-adapted fish in gill Na + ,K + -ATPase activity or oxygen-consumption rates. The gill chloride cells were located mostly in a flat region of the afferent-vascular edge of the filaments. In both tissues, the cells were larger in FW- than in SW-adapted fish. The apical membrane of chloride cells was invaginated to form a pit in SW-adapted fish, whereas it was flat or showed projections and was equipped with microvilli in FW-adapted fish. Chloride cells often interdigitated with neighboring accessory cells in SW-adapted fish, forming multicellular complexes. In FW-adapted fish, on the other hand, a pair of chloride cells that were similar in size was occasionally associated to form "twin cells." Thus, distinct SW and FW types of chloride cells were defined. Our findings suggest that SW- and FW-type chloride cells are equally active in the two environments, but exhibit different ion-transporting functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".