MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137271812 · doi:10.1242/bio.201410058

Ontogeny of melanophore photosensitivity in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)

2014· article· en· W2137271812 on OpenAlexafffund
Shyh‐Chi Chen, R. Meldrum Robertson, Craig W. Hawryshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyChromatophoreSmoltificationRainbow troutOntogenyAdaptation (eye)ZebrafishMelanophoreZoologyAnatomyNeuroscienceFish <Actinopterygii>SalmonidaeFisheryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migratory species experience morphological and physiological changes during transitions between different life stages. In particular, modification of sensory systems is critical for animals to adapt to new environments. For example, to prepare for entry into seawater, salmonids undergo smoltification with dramatic changes in ultraviolet photoreceptors and polarized vision, which are important for orientation and foraging behaviours. Extraretinal organs are also involved in photoreception; however, the ontogenetic development of extraretinal photoreceptors is not well known, especially in migratory species. Here, we investigated whether rainbow trout dermal photoreceptors, melanophores, undergo change in spectral sensitivity during smoltification and which candidate molecules may account for this ontogenetic alteration. Our results showed that, contrary to parr melanophores which are insensitive to light, smolt melanophores displayed chromatic photoresponses with the emergence of cryptochrome and melanopsin expression. We suggest that these modifications may benefit the active foraging behaviour of smolts and enable adaptation to variable environments.

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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology OpenSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207