Histology of tooth attachment tissues and plicidentine in<i>Varanus</i>(Reptilia: Squamata), and a discussion of the evolution of amniote tooth attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few recent studies have examined the histological basis for tooth attachment in squamates. In the past few years, a surge of interest in this topic has led to the intriguing suggestion that the major tissues derived from the tooth germ (enamel, dentine, cementum and alveolar bone), are conservative and are present in all amniotes. In this study, we describe the histology and development of the tooth attachment complex in Varanus rudicollis, the rough-neck monitor. We provide the first published evidence for the role of cementum and alveolar bone in tooth attachment in varanoid lizards. In Varanus, cementum is deposited on the external surface of the tooth root as well as at the base of the tooth, where it plays a role in the attachment of the tooth to the jawbone. Alveolar bone is also involved in tooth ankylosis. Our results support the hypothesis that the major tooth germ tissues are found in all amniotes. We provide insights into the structure and development of plicidentine, defined as infolding of the dentine around the tooth base. This feature is unique to varanoids among extant tetrapods and is the third tissue implicated in tooth attachment in Varanus. Plicidentine develops asymmetrically along the labial-lingual axis of a tooth. Varanus is characterized by the presence of both primary and higher-order lamellae, which anastomose to form a honeycomb-like surface that then interacts with the more basal attachment tissues.
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".