Cell proliferation and movement during early fin regeneration in zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell proliferation and cell movement during early regeneration of zebrafish caudal fins were examined by injecting BrdU and Di-I, respectively. In normal fins of adult fish, a small number of proliferating cells are observed in the epidermis only. Shortly following amputation, epithelial cells covered the wound to form the epidermal cap but did not proliferate. However, by 24 hr, epithelial cells proximal to the level of amputation were strongly labeled with BrdU. Label incorporation was also detected in a few mesenchymal cells. Proliferating cells in the basal epithelial layer were first observed at 48 hr at the level of the newly formed lepidotrichia. At 72 hr, proliferating mesenchymal cells were found distal to the plane of amputation whereas more proximal labeled cells included mainly those located between the lepidotrichia and the basal membrane. When BrdU-injected fins were allowed to regenerate for longer periods, labeled cells were observed in the apical epidermal cap, a location where cells are not thought to proliferate. This result is suggestive of cell migration. Epithelial cells, peripheral to the rays or in the tissue between adjacent rays, were labeled with Di-I and were shown to quickly migrate towards the site of amputation, the cells closer to the wound migrating faster. Amputation also triggered migration of cells of the connective tissue located between the hemirays. Although cell movement was induced up to seven segments proximal from the level of amputation, cells located within two segments from the wound provided the main contribution to the blastema. Thus, cell proliferation and migration contribute to the early regeneration of zebrafish fins.
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".