Visual pigment composition in zebrafish: Evidence for a rhodopsin–porphyropsin interchange system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous reports have concluded that zebrafish (Danio rerio) possesses A1-based visual pigments in their rod and cone photoreceptors. In the present study, we investigated the possibility that zebrafish have a paired visual pigment system. We measured the spectral absorption characteristics of photoreceptors from zebrafish maintained in different temperature regimes and those treated with exogenous thyroid hormone using CCD-based microspectrophotometry. Rods from fish housed at 15 degrees C and 28 degrees C were not significantly different, having lambda max values of 503 +/- 5 nm (n = 106) and 504 +/- 6 nm (n = 88), respectively. Thyroid hormone treatment (held at 28 degrees C), however, significantly shifted the lambda max of rods from 503 +/- 5 nm (n = 194) to 527 +/- 8 nm (n = 212). Cone photoreceptors in fish housed at 28 degrees C (without thyroid hormone treatment) had lambda max values of 361 +/- 3 nm (n = 2) for ultraviolet-, 411 +/- 5 nm (n = 18) for short-, 482 +/- 6 nm (n = 9) for medium-, and 565 +/- 10 nm (n = 14) for long-wavelength sensitive cones. Thyroid hormone treatment of fish held at 28 degrees C significantly shifted the lambda max of long-wavelength sensitive cones to 613 +/- 11 nm (n = 20), substantially beyond that of the lambda max of the longest possible A1-based visual pigment (approximately 580 nm). Thyroid hormone treatment produced smaller shifts of lambda max in other cone types and increased the half-band width. All shifts in photoreceptor lambda max values resulting from thyroid hormone treatment matched predictions for an A1- to A2-based visual pigment system. We therefore conclude that zebrafish possess a rhodopsin-porphyropsin interchange system that functions to spectrally tune rod and cone photoreceptors. We believe that these observations should be carefully considered during analysis of zebrafish spectral sensitivity.
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".