How reversible is development? Contrast between developmentally plastic gain and loss of segments in barnacle feeding legs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmented organisms and structures have fascinated biologists since William Bateson first described homeotic transformation and recognized the fundamental evolutionary significance of segmental organization. On evolutionary time scales, segments may be lost or gained during major morphological transitions. But how segment loss compares to gain on developmental time scales remains mysterious. Here, we examine the ease of reverse development (opposite to normal growth) by comparing developmentally plastic leg segment loss versus gain in individual barnacles transplanted between different water flow conditions. Plastic segment addition occurred rapidly (one to two molts) and exclusively near the limb base. In contrast, developmentally plastic segment loss-the first observation in any arthropod-took much longer (>10 molts) and, remarkably, occurred throughout the leg (23% of losses occurred mid-limb). Segment loss was not a simple reversal of segment addition. Intersegmental membranes fused first, followed by elimination of duplicate tendons and gradual shortening (but not loss) of duplicate setae. Setal loss, in particular, may impose a severe developmental constraint on arthropod segment fusion. This asymmetric developmental potential (time lag of phenotypic response)-plastic segment addition (amplified normal development) is faster and more orderly than segment loss (reverse development)-adds a new dimension to models of developmental plasticity because the cost of making a developmental mistake in one direction will be greater than in the other.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".