Photoreception and Signal Transduction in Corals: Proteomic and Behavioral Evidence for Cytoplasmic Calcium as a Mediator of Light Responsivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how corals sense and respond to light. In this report the proteome of coral is explored using 2D protein electrophoresis in two species, Montastraea cavernosa and Acropora millepora. Multiple protein species have major shifts in abundance in both species when sampled in daylight compared to corals sampled late in the night. These changes were observed both in larvae lacking zooxanthellae and in adult tissue containing zooxanthellae, including both Pacific and Caribbean corals. When larvae kept in the dark were treated with either thapsigargin or ionomycin, compounds that raise the level of cytoplasmic calcium, the night pattern of proteins shifted to the day pattern. This implies that photoreceptors responding to light elevate calcium levels and that calcium acts as the second messenger relaying light responses in corals. Corals spawn at night, and spawning can be delayed by exposure to light or pushed forward by early artificial sunsets. In a series of behavioral experiments, treatment of corals with ionomycin or thapsigargin was found to delay broadcast spawning in M. franksi, demonstrating that pharmacologically altering cytoplasmic calcium levels generates the same response as light exposure. Together these results show that the photo-responsive cells of corals detect and respond to light by altering cytoplasmic calcium levels, similarly to the transduction pathways in complex invertebrate eyes. The primacy of cytoplasmic calcium levels in light responsivity has broad implications for coral reproduction, including predicting how different species spawn at different times after sunset and how reproductive isolation is achieved during coral speciation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".