MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154533343 · doi:10.1093/icb/icp038

Epithelia and integration in sponges

2009· article· en· W2154533343 on OpenAlexaff
Sally P. Leys, Scott Nichols, EMILY D. M. ADAMS

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpongeBiologySeptate junctionsAdherens junctionCell biologyEpitheliumTight junctionBody planAnatomyUltrastructureCadherinGeneticsBotanyIntracellularCellGap junctionEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An epithelium is important for integrity, homeostasis, communication and co-ordination, and its development must have been a fundamental step in the evolution of modern metazoan body plans. Sponges are metazoans that are often said to lack a true epithelium. We assess the properties of epithelia, and review the history of studies on sponge epithelia, focusing on their homology to bilaterian epithelia, their ultrastructure, and on their ability to seal. Electron micrographs show that adherens-type junctions are present in sponges but they can appear much slighter than equivalent junctions in other metazoans. Fine septae are seen in junctions of all sponge groups, but distinct septate junctions are only known from Calcarea. Similarly, all sponges can have collagenous sheets underlying their epithelia, but only homoscleromorphs are established to have a distinct basal lamina. The presence of most, but not all, gene families known to be involved in epithelial development and function also suggests that sponge epithelia function like, and are homologous to, bilaterian epithelia. However, physiological evidence that sponge epithelia regulate their internal environment is so far lacking. Given that up to six differentiated epithelia can be recognized in sponges, distinct physiological roles are expected. Recognition that sponges have epithelia challenges the perception that sponges are only loose associations of cells, and helps to relate the biology and physiology of the body plan of the adult sponge to the biology of other metazoans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations124
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207