The regeneration blastema of lizards: an amniote model for the study of appendage replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although amniotes (reptiles, including birds, and mammals) are capable of replacing certain tissues, complete appendage regeneration is rare. Perhaps the most striking example is the lizard tail. Tail loss initiates a spontaneous epimorphic (blastema-mediated) regenerative program, resulting in a fully functional but structurally non-identical replacement. Here we review lizard tail regeneration with a particular focus on the blastema. In many lizards, the original tail has evolved a series of fracture planes, anatomical modifications that permit the tail to be self-detached or autotomized. Following tail loss, the wound site is covered by a specialized wound epithelium under which the blastema develops. An outgrowth of the spinal cord, the ependymal tube, plays a key role in governing growth (and likely patterning) of the regenerate tail. In some species (e.g., geckos), the blastema forms as an apical aggregation of proliferating cells, similar to that of urodeles and teleosts. For other species (e.g., anoles) the identification of a proliferative blastema is less obvious, suggesting an unexpected diversity in regenerative mechanisms among tail-regenerating lizards.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".