Skin‐type antifreeze protein expression in integumental cells of larval winter flounder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wholemount in situ hybridization using an antisense riboprobe complementary to a winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus skin‐type antifreeze protein mRNA (WFp9) and immuno histochemistry using polyclonal antibodies to the corresponding protein detected cells expressing this gene in larval winter flounder integument. Immunohistochemistry revealed two distinct populations of cells. One population extended laterally along the length of the fish and was detectable using in situ hybridization. Staining in these cells declined following yolk‐sac absorption suggesting that expression was only important here during early larval development. The polyclonal antibody for skin‐type antifreeze protein also reacted with another population of cells scattered throughout the integument. These cells stained with alcian blue suggesting that they were integumental mucous cells. In situ hybridization using the above probe was not able to detect the corresponding transcript within the same cells. This suggests that another gene may be involved in the production of a similar protein in this case. These data suggest that two distinct populations of cells within the larval integument are involved in skin‐type antifreeze protein expression and possibly involve the activity of at least two different genes.
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".