Ontogeny of cone photoreceptor mosaics in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cone photoreceptors in fish are typically arranged into a precise, reiterated pattern known as a "cone mosaic." Cone mosaic patterns can vary in different fish species and in response to changes in habitat, yet their function and the mechanisms of their development remain speculative. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) have four cone subtypes arranged into precise rows in the adult retina. Here we describe larval zebrafish cone patterns and investigate a previously unrecognized transition between larval and adult cone mosaic patterns. Cone positions were determined in transgenic zebrafish expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP) in their UV-sensitive cones, by the use of multiplex in situ hybridization labelling of various cone opsins. We developed a "mosaic metric" statistical tool to measure local cone order. We found that ratios of the various cone subtypes in larval and adult zebrafish were statistically different. The cone photoreceptors in larvae form a regular heterotypic mosaic array; i.e., the position of any one cone spectral subtype relative to the other cone subtypes is statistically different from random. However, the cone spectral subtypes in larval zebrafish are not arranged in continuous rows as in the adult. We used cell birth dating to show that the larval cone mosaic pattern remains as a distinct region within the adult retina and does not reorganize into the adult row pattern. In addition, the abundance of cone subtypes relative to other subtypes is different in this larval remnant compared with that of larvae or canonical adult zebrafish retina. These observations provide baseline data for understanding the development of cone mosaics via comparative analysis of larval and adult cone development in a model species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".