MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316575629 · doi:10.1242/jeb.049742

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT – THE FANTASTIC FLASH OF THE CLUSTERWINK SNAIL

2011· article· en· W2316575629 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica U. Meir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnailLight pollutionEcologyBiologyLight intensityPredationCamouflageCreaturesFisheryIntertidal zoneZoologyPaleontologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioluminescence, the biological production of light, is a breath-taking event to behold. Brilliant squid, elegant jellies and glowing fish use this strategy to attract mates, detect prey, camouflage themselves or deter predators. Extraordinary adaptations to transmit light are well characterized in open ocean species but are not well described in marine molluscs in other habitats. Although the intertidal, thumb nail-sized clusterwink snail, Hinea brasiliana, is known to be among these luminous creatures, the mechanism behind its light production was a mystery. Dimitri Deheyn and Nerida Wilson at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD) set out to unravel these secrets, exposing an incredible, unique tactic behind the glow of this snail.Deheyn and Wilson caught the tiny snails on the beaches of eastern Australia, where they cluster in groups among rocks. The duo transported their catch to the laboratory to quantify the snail's emitted light. First, they stimulated the snails to produce light using chemicals and, within seconds, the clusterwink emitted a radiant blue–green light from an area of its body incapable of extending beyond the shell. Next, they placed snails with other organisms from their habitat to find out what provoked the molluscs' light display. They found that the snails produced their highest light levels when they encountered species that they contacted frequently. To determine whether the clusterwink's light show could be mechanically stimulated, the team then placed the snails with actively swimming amphipods, providing ample opportunity for physical interaction. Although rare as a trigger of bioluminescence in other species, physical contact did trigger intense light displays from the snails.As the source of light cannot extend beyond the snail's opaque, pigmented and calcified shell, the authors then characterized how the shell transmitted and diffused light. They found that despite its hardiness, the shell transmits most wavelengths of light, with the exception of the blue–green peak of the snail's bioluminescence. However, when blue–green light is shone into the shell (mimicking natural bioluminescence), it scatters to parts of the shell not directly exposed to the source, allowing regions of the shell that are not directly illuminated to glow. Deheyn and Wilson also found that the wavelength of the light is not altered by the pigment or opacity of the shell, in contrast to other bioluminescent organisms that do alter the light's colour. The shell also transmits light incredibly effectively for its thickness: 8 times higher than an equivalent commercially available diffuser. Although high transmittance is usually associated with low diffusion in materials, the shell's biomaterial retains a remarkable capacity to diffuse light. In fact, the blue–green glow projects over the entire shell, an area 10 times larger than that of commercial diffusers. The authors think that this remarkable property co-evolved with H. brasiliana's luminous capacity as the shells of closely related non-bioluminescent species do not diffuse or transmit light.This is the first account of a calcified structure that diffuses and enlarges biologically produced light, perhaps providing inspiration for the next generation of light-transmitting materials and optical devices. However, from the clusterwink's perspective, their shells provide an exceptional defence tactic: producing an intense and enlarged flash of light to deter predators while offering shelter to the resident within.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchFrench-language works237,207