Dynamic skeletogenesis in fishes: Insight of exercise training on developmental plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Through developmental and evolutionary time, organisms respond variably to their environment not only in terms of size and shape but also in terms of timing. Developmental plasticity can potentially act on various aspects of the timing of developmental events (i.e., appearance, cessation, duration, sequence). In this study, we address the developmental plasticity of median fin endoskeleton by using exercise training on newly-hatched Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). RESULTS: Developmental progress of cartilage formation (i.e., chondrification) in all fins is less influenced than ossification by an increase of water velocity. The most responsive elements, meaning those elements with greater onset plasticity owing to a water velocity increase, differ in terms of early versus late developmental events. The most responsive elements are those that chondrify and to a greater extent ossify later in the development. CONCLUSIONS: Plasticity is documented for the timing of appearance (i.e., onset) and the timing of transition from cartilage to bone (i.e., transitions of skeletal states) rather than the order of events within a sequence. Similarities of plastic response in developmental patterns could be used as a powerful criterion to strengthen the identification of phenotypic modules.
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) | 0.002 | 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".