Rapid Recovery of Visual Function Associated with Blue Cone Ablation in Zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hurdles in the treatment of retinal degeneration include managing the functional rewiring of surviving photoreceptors and integration of any newly added cells into the remaining second-order retinal neurons. Zebrafish are the premier genetic model for such questions, and we present two new transgenic lines allowing us to contrast vision loss and recovery following conditional ablation of specific cone types: UV or blue cones. The ablation of each cone type proved to be thorough (killing 80% of cells in each intended cone class), specific, and cell-autonomous. We assessed the loss and recovery of vision in larvae via the optomotor behavioural response (OMR). This visually mediated behaviour decreased to about 5% or 20% of control levels following ablation of UV or blue cones, respectively (P<0.05). We further assessed ocular photoreception by measuring the effects of UV light on body pigmentation, and observed that photoreceptor deficits and recovery occurred (p<0.01) with a timeline coincident to the OMR results. This corroborated and extended previous conclusions that UV cones are required photoreceptors for modulating body pigmentation, addressing assumptions that were unavoidable in previous experiments. Functional vision recovery following UV cone ablation was robust, as measured by both assays, returning to control levels within four days. In contrast, robust functional recovery following blue cone ablation was unexpectedly rapid, returning to normal levels within 24 hours after ablation. Ablation of cones led to increased proliferation in the retina, though the rapid recovery of vision following blue cone ablation was demonstrated to not be mediated by blue cone regeneration. Thus rapid visual recovery occurs following ablation of some, but not all, cone subtypes, suggesting an opportunity to contrast and dissect the sources and mechanisms of outer retinal recovery during cone photoreceptor death and regeneration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".