Bone resorption and bone remodelling in juvenile carp, Cyprinus carpio L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study considers the important role of bone resorption for bone growth in general, and aims to clarify if and how bone resorption contributes to the skeletal development of carp, Cyprinus carpio L., a teleost species with ‘normal’ osteocyte-containing (cellular) bone. To ensure the identification of osteoclasts and sites of bone resorption independently from the morphology of the bony cells, bones were studied by histological procedures, and by demonstration of the enzymes which serve as osteoclast markers, viz. tartrate resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP), ATPase and a vacuolar proton pump. Two types of bone-resorbing cells were observed in juvenile carp: (1) multinucleated giant cells displaying morphological and biochemical attributes which are known from mammalian osteoclasts; and (b) flat cells which lack a visible ruffled border and for which identification requires the performance of enzyme histochemical procedures. Bone resorption performed by osteoclasts mainly occurs at endosteal bone surfaces. To a lesser extent, bone resorption also takes place at periosteal bone surfaces, but without an apparent connection to bone growth. The latter observation, and the occurrence of bone remodelling, suggest that the endoskeleton of juvenile carp might be involved in mineral metabolism. Morphological differences and biochemical similarities to bone resorption in teleosts with acellular bone are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".