Features of mono‐ and multinucleated bone resorbing cells of the zebrafish <i>Danio rerio</i> and their contribution to skeletal development, remodeling, and growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide basic data about bone resorbing cells in the skeleton during the life cycle of Danio rerio, larvae, juveniles, and adults (divided into six age groups) were studied by histological procedures and by demonstration of the osteoclast marker enzyme tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP). Special attention was paid to the lower jaw, which is a standard element for fish bone studies. The presence of osteoclasts at endosteal surfaces of growing bones of all animals older than 20 days reveals that resorption is an important part of zebrafish skeletal development. The first bone-resorbing cells to form are mononucleated. They appear in 20-day-old animals concurrently in the craniofacial skeleton and vertebral column. Mononucleated osteoclasts are predominant in juveniles. Regional differences characterize the appearance of osteoclasts; at thin skeletal elements (neural arches, nasal) mononucleated osteoclasts are predominant even in adults. Multinucleated bone-resorbing cells were first observed in 40-day-old animals and are the predominant osteoclast type of adults. Both mono- and multinucleated osteoclasts contribute to allometric bone growth but multinucleated osteoclasts are also involved in lacunar bone resorption and repeated bone remodeling. Resorption of the dentary follows the pattern described above (mononucleated osteoclasts precede multinucleated cells) and includes the partial removal of Meckel's cartilage. Bone marrow spaces created by resorption are usually filled with adipose tissue. In conclusion, bone resorption is primarily subjected to the demands of growth, the appearance of mono- and multinucleated osteoclasts is site- and age-related, and bone remodeling occurs. The results are discussed in relation to findings in other teleosts and in mammals.
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".