Effects of Gravity, Microgravity or Microgravity Simulation on Early Mammalian Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant and animal life forms evolved mechanisms for sensing and responding to gravity on Earth where homeostatic needs require responses. The lack of gravity, such as in the International Space Station (ISS), causes acute, intra-generational changes in the quality of life. These include maintaining calcium levels in bone, maintaining muscle tone, and disturbances in the vestibular apparatus in the ears. These problems decrease work efficiency and quality of life of humans not only during microgravity exposures but also after return to higher gravity on Earth or destinations such as Mars or the Moon. It has been hypothesized that lack of gravity during mammalian development may cause prenatal, postnatal and transgenerational effects that conflict with the environment, especially if the developing organism and its progeny are returned, or introduced de novo, into the varied gravity environments mentioned above. Although chicken and frog pregastrulation development, and plant root development, have profound effects due to orientation of cues by gravity-sensing mechanisms and responses, mammalian development is not typically characterized as gravity-sensing. Although no effects of microgravity simulation (MGS) on mouse fertilization were observed in two reports, negative effects of MGS on early mammalian development after fertilization and before gastrulation are presented in four reports that vary with the modality of MGS. This review will analyze the positive and negative mammalian early developmental outcomes, and enzymatic and epigenetic mechanisms known to mediate developmental responses to simulated microgravity on Earth and microgravity during spaceflight experiments. We will update experimental techniques that have already been developed or need to be developed for zero gravity molecular, cellular, and developmental biology experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".