MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269052127 · doi:10.1242/jeb.123133

Hypercapnia and low pH induce neuroepithelial cell proliferation and emersion behaviour in the amphibious fish <i>Kryptolebias marmoratus</i>

2015· article· en· W2269052127 on OpenAlexaff
Cayleih E. Robertson, Andy J. Turko, Michael G. Jonz, Patricia A. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypercapniaChemoreceptorBiologyAcidosisEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquatic hypercapnia may have helped to drive ancestral vertebrate invasion of land. We tested the hypothesis that amphibious fishes sense and respond to elevated aquatic PCO2 by behavioural avoidance mechanisms, and by morphological changes at the chemoreceptor level. Mangrove rivulus (Kryptolebias marmoratus) were exposed to 1 week of normocapnic control water (pH 8), air, hypercapnia (5% CO2, pH 6.8) or isocapnic acidosis (pH 6.8). We found that the density of CO2/H(+) chemoreceptive neuroepithelial cells (NECs) was increased in hypercapnia or isocapnic acidosis-exposed fish. Projection area (a measure of cell size) was unchanged. Acute exposure to progressive hypercapnia induced the fish to emerse (leave water) at water pH values ∼6.1, whereas addition of HCl to water caused a more variable response with a lower pH threshold (∼pH 5.5). These results support our hypothesis and suggest that aquatic hypercapnia provides an adequate stimulus for extant amphibious fishes to temporarily transition from aquatic to terrestrial habitats.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207