MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135494077 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01002

Arrested development in<i>Xenopus laevis</i>tadpoles: how size constrains metamorphosis

2004· article· en· W2135494077 on OpenAlexaff
Irena Rot, Richard J. Wassersug

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphosisNeotenyBiologyLarvaXenopusTadpole (physics)AnatomyThyroidZoologyEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xenopus laevis tadpoles that arrest development and remain as larvae for several years sometimes occur spontaneously in laboratory populations. These tadpoles cease development at an early hindlimb stage, but continue to grow and develop into grossly deformed giants. Giant tadpoles lack thyroid glands, and differ in morphology and behaviour from normal larvae. They are negatively buoyant, typically with small and partially solidified lungs, and have greatly enlarged fat bodies. Giant tadpoles have mature gonads with eggs and sperm, whereas normal tadpoles of the same stage have undifferentiated gonads. Larval reproduction has never been reported in anurans, but gonadal development decoupled from metamorphosis brings these giants the closest of any anurans to being truly neotenic. We discuss behavioural and morphological factors that may hinder both reproduction in giant Xenopus larvae and the evolution of neoteny in anurans in general. Experimental treatment with exogenous thyroid hormone induces some, but not complete, metamorphic changes in these giants. The limbs and head progress through metamorphosis; however, all tadpoles die at the stage when the tail would normally be resorbed. The disproportionate growth of tissues and organs in giant tadpoles may preclude complete metamorphosis, even under exogenous thyroid hormone induction.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207