MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105715196 · doi:10.1002/jez.b.21145

Histological microstructure of the claws of the African clawed frog, <i>Xenopus laevis</i> (Anura: Pipidae): implications for the evolution of claws in tetrapods

2007· article· en· W2105715196 on OpenAlexaff
Hillary C. Maddin, Sorin Musat‐Marcu, Robert R. Reisz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental Evolution · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Celiac AssociationUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of California, Davis
KeywordsClawAmnioteBiologyAfrican clawed frogAnatomyXenopusIntegumentEpidermis (zoology)DermisTetrapod (structure)VertebrateEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental EvolutionSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207