Histological microstructure of the claws of the African clawed frog, <i>Xenopus laevis</i> (Anura: Pipidae): implications for the evolution of claws in tetrapods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Claws are consistent components of amniote anatomy and may thus be implicated in the success of the amniote invasion of land. However, the evolutionary origin of these structures in tetrapods is unclear. Claws are present in certain extant non-amniotes, such as Xenopus laevis, the African clawed frog. The histology of the soft tissue component of the claws of X. laevis is described and compared with the amniote condition in order to gain new information on the question of homology of claws in these two groups based on patterns of keratinization. The X. laevis claw sheath is composed of a localized thickening of the corneous region of the epidermis that envelops the terminal phalanx. Noted differences between the non-cornified layers of the epidermis of the claw and non-claw region are the overall grainier appearance of the cells and an increased abundance of desmosomes in the intermediate spinosus cells. The biochemical identity of the sheath keratin(s) is inferred to be different from that of non-claw region epidermis, based on histological differences and differences in stain affinity between the two regions. The microstructure of the frog claw differs from that of amniotes in several respects, including the lack of a specified zone of growth near the base of the claw. Amphibians and amniotes, therefore, have very different patterns of claw sheath growth. Observations do not support homology of claws on a structural level in these two groups; however, further experimental work may confirm a conserved pattern of cornification in these structures in tetrapods.
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".