The influence of chromatic background on the photosensitivity of tilapia erythrophores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-mammalian vertebrates and invertebrates use extraretinal photoreceptors to detect light and perform diverse non-image-forming functions. Compared to well-studied visual systems, the effect of ambient light conditions on photosensory systems of extraretinal photoreceptors is poorly understood. Chromatophores are photosensitive dermal pigment cells that play an important role in the formation of body color patterns to fit the surrounding environment. Here, we used tilapia erythrophores to investigate the relationship between environmental light and chromatophore photoresponses. All erythrophores from three spectral conditions aggregated their pigment granules in UV/short wavelengths and dispersed in middle/long wavelengths. Unlike retinal visual systems, environmental light did not change the usage of the primary opsins responsible for aggregation and dispersion. In addition, short wavelength-rich and red-shifted background conditions led to an inhibitory effect on erythrophore photoresponses. We suggest that, as extraretinal photoreceptors for non-image-forming functions, chromatophores directly adjust their photoresponse sensitivity via changes in opsin expression levels rather than opsin types when environmental light changes.
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".