A histochemical and immunohistochemical investigation of epimorphic regeneration in the representative lizard, <i>Eublepharis macularius</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epimorphic regeneration involves cell proliferation and the formation of a regeneration blastema to replace lost or damaged tissues. Although well described for teleosts and urodeles, this type of regeneration is also characteristic of many lizards. The objective of this study was to investigate the events that characterize epimorphic tail regeneration in the leopard gecko, Eublepharis macularius using both histochemistry and immunohistochemistry. Changes in tissue structure and composition of the regenerating tail were examined at various times post‐tail loss. A phase of wound healing follows immediately after tail loss during which time basal cells of the epidermis proliferate and migrate across the wound site. Once the wound is capped proliferation begins deep to the wound epithelium, giving rise to a localized mass of undifferentiated cells, the regeneration blastema. Blastema formation coincides with the onset of angiogenesis and redevelopment of axons and the ependymal tube of the spinal cord. Skeletal tissues differentiate somewhat later during tail regeneration, matching with the expression of Sox9. We also observe Sox9 expression in both mesenchymal and ependymal cells. Our findings demonstrate the utility of lizard tails as a model system for ongoing studies of epimorphic regeneration. Grant Funding Source : NSERC
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".