MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239351823 · doi:10.1038/srep11182

Hagfish: Champions of CO2 tolerance question the origins of vertebrate gill function

2015· article· en· W2239351823 on OpenAlexaff
D. W. Baker, Brian A. Sardella, Jodie L. Rummer, M. Sackville, Colin J. Brauner

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Island UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHagfishGillChordateVertebrateBiologyExtant taxonHypercarbiaZoologyBasal (medicine)AnatomyEvolutionary biologyFisheryAcidosisEndocrinologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gill is widely accepted to have played a key role in the adaptive radiation of early vertebrates by supplanting the skin as the dominant site of gas exchange. However, in the most basal extant craniates, the hagfishes, gills play only a minor role in gas exchange. In contrast, we found hagfish gills to be associated with a tremendous capacity for acid-base regulation. Indeed, Pacific hagfish exposed acutely to severe sustained hypercarbia tolerated among the most severe blood acidoses ever reported (1.2 pH unit reduction) and subsequently exhibited the greatest degree of acid-base compensation ever observed in an aquatic chordate. This was accomplished through an unprecedented increase in plasma [HCO3(-)] (>75 mM) in exchange for [Cl(-)]. We thus propose that the first physiological function of the ancestral gill was acid-base regulation, and that the gill was later co-opted for its central role in gas exchange in more derived aquatic vertebrates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207