Cellular mechanisms of slime gland refilling in Pacific hagfish (<i>Eptatretus stoutii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hagfishes use their defensive slime to ward off gill-breathing predators. Slime gland refilling is a surprisingly slow process, and previous research has shown that the composition of the slime exudate changes significantly during refilling, which likely has consequences for the functionality of the slime. This study set out to expand our understanding of slime gland refilling by examining the cellular processes involved in refilling of the glands, as well as determining where in the gland the main slime cells - the gland thread cells and gland mucous cells - arise. Slime glands were electro-stimulated to exhaust their slime stores, left to refill for set periods of time, and harvested for histological and immunohistochemical examination. Whole slime glands, gland thread cell morphometrics and slime cell proportions were examined over the refilling cycle. Slime glands decreased significantly in size after exhaustion, but steadily increased in size over refilling. Gland thread cells were the limiting factor in slime gland refilling, taking longer to replenish and mature than gland mucous cells. Newly produced gland thread cells underwent most of their growth near the edge of the gland, and larger cells were found farthest from the edge of the gland. Immunohistochemical analysis also revealed proliferating cells only within the epithelial lining of the slime gland, suggesting that new slime cells originate from undifferentiated cells lining the gland. Our results provide an in-depth look at the cellular dynamics of slime gland refilling in Pacific hagfish, and provide a model for how slime glands refill at the cellular level.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".