MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2942757672 · doi:10.1242/jeb.192799

The vertebrate story lies in the fossil of a slimy fish

2019· article· en· W2942757672 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oana Birceanu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHagfishVertebrateVertebrate paleontologyEnvironmental ethicsEvolutionary biologyPerspective (graphical)Function (biology)BiologyZoologyGeographyPaleontologyComputer sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiologists are fascinated by the link between animal form and function. Some try to understand how animals use this link to adapt to their changing environments, while others have made it their career goal to uncover how an animal has evolved a specific function. But what if that evolutionary road is not as clear, perhaps because there are missing links in the evolutionary tree and competing theories about how that animal has come to be the way it is today? Or, what if an animal is so different from the rest that it is difficult to tell how it relates to other groups of animals?Undeterred by such challenges, Tetsuto Miyashita, working out of University of Chicago, Illinois, USA, and University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada, along with an international group of researchers from two different continents, set out to resolve the evolutionary history of a very peculiar creature: the hagfish. It is the only animal to have a skull, but no vertebral column or spine – even though it is classified as a vertebrate – and it produces slime when threatened. Miyashita and his colleagues investigated the creature from a unique perspective by studying the features of a hagfish fossil (Tethymixine tapirostrum) from the Late Cretaceous period found in Lebanon, which they obtained from the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research in South Dakota, USA. To add to their challenge, the team tried to reconcile two competing theories about the place of the hagfish in the evolutionary history of the vertebrates: (1) that hagfish are a primitive group of vertebrates, or (2) that they are a separate, specialized group of vertebrates all-together.Using a sophisticated technique for studying minerals in soft tissues, called synchrotron rapid-scanning X-ray fluorescence (SRS XRF), the authors examined the gill and mouth structures of the fossil. Because the fossil lacked paired fins, jaws, a mineral skeleton and features such as an oral sucker, cartilage and dorsal fin, the researchers concluded that it was not an ancestor of either the eel or the lamprey, which are similar; it was certainly a hagfish fossil. Next, the authors examined the fossil's slime glands, which are unique to hagfish. The group determined that it had 133 glands on the right side, which is more than most living hagfishes, but the animal was smaller in size. Using complex statistical analysis and historical data on the structure and evolution of lampreys and eels, the team was then able to assign the hagfish fossil to its rightful place in the evolutionary history of vertebrates. They classified it as the missing link between the last common ancestor of all vertebrates and the living soft-bodied round-mouthed fishes, thus filling a 100 million year gap in evolution.Miyashita and his colleagues’ study is revolutionary, because it shows that features such as lack of vertebral column and the round mouth of living hagfishes, which were previously believed to be primitive, are actually quite specialized, and these ancient animals seem to have evolved new adaptive features, such as their slime glands. The team's findings appear to agree with the second theory about the location of the hagfishes in the tree of life, classifying them as a specialized group rather than a primitive vertebrate. In addition, the team of researchers propose that the last common ancestor of all vertebrates is not a soft-bodied hagfish-like animal, as is the current theory. However, what that animal is, what it looked like and how closely it relates to the modern animals we see today awaits discovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology→French-language works237,207→