Electrophysiological assessment of spectral sensitivity in adult Nile tilapia <i>Oreochromis niloticus</i>: evidence for violet sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cichlid fish radiations of the African Great Lakes are an important model for evolutionary biology. Cichlids have diverse colour vision systems and predominately express three cone visual pigments. However, rare populations of spectrally distinct cones have been found in a number of species, but it is not known whether they contribute to spectral sensitivity. Adult Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, an ancestral outgroup to the cichlid radiations in the Great Lakes, have three cone types: short-wavelength sensitive (SWS), medium-wavelength sensitive (MWS) and long-wavelength sensitive (LWS) cones, but evidence from microspectrophotometry and cone opsin gene expression suggests they may also have violet-sensitive (VS) cones. We used electrophysiology to assess spectral sensitivity in this species and found evidence of four sensitivity peaks in the ranges 380-420, 440-480, 500-600 and 600-680 nm, with maximal sensitivity at longer wavelengths. The continued presence of a 380-420 nm peak under long-wavelength chromatic adapting backgrounds indicates that this is due to a VS cone mechanism not the beta-band of the LWS cone mechanism. Differences in spectral sensitivity curves recorded at different times of year revealed evidence of A1/A2 shifts. The presence of notches in the sensitivity curves and a multiple-mechanisms model used to assess cone contributions indicated that the curves are the result of four cone mechanisms (VS, SWS, MWS and LWS cones) and that chromatically opponent processes occur between mechanisms. The spectral transmittance of the lens steeply declines between 410-380 nm, limiting the short-wavelength limb of the VS cone. As adults, Nile tilapia appear to possess the necessary retinal mechanisms for colour vision. While maximal sensitivity to longer wavelengths is an adaptation to the wavelengths of light predominantly available in their natural habitats, their broad sensitivity range suggests that Nile tilapia possess a flexible, generalised visual system able to adapt to changes in visual environment in their highly variable natural habitat.
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".