Ultraviolet light‐induced impairment of goldfish embryo development and evidence for photorepair mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goldfish Carassius auratus embryos were subjected to artificial ultraviolet‐B (UVB) radiation (280–320 nm) at various times during development to evaluate the effects on production of anatomically normal larvae. The UVB radiation used in these experiments included a higher proportion of shorter wavelengths compared to the natural spectrum. The development of embryos exposed to UVB for 2 or 4 h at 26 h post‐fertilization was severely impaired whereas similar exposures at 50 or 74 h post‐fertilization had no effect. A 2 h exposure to UVB commencing at 2 h post‐fertilization did not adversely affect embryonic development whereas a 4 h exposure to a lower dose did. At 50 h post‐fertilization, when embryos were normally resistant to UVB, denial of access to visible light and UVA before, during and after exposure to UVB caused impairment of development. Analysis of DNA fragment length after incubation with an endonuclease suggested that UVB damage at 50 h was caused by formation of pyrimidine dimers. This study demonstrated that the sensitivity of goldfish embryos to UVB varied during development and that resistance to UVB in later developmental stages included a photorepair mechanism.
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".