MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Evolution of Air‐breathing Revised

2019· article· en· W2945576786 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Damsgaard, Vikram B. Baliga

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCarlsbergfondet
KeywordsExtant taxonBreathingBreathing gasEvolutionary biologyCladeBiologyVentilation (architecture)PhylogeneticsAnatomyMeteorologyGeographyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of air‐breathing represents one the most pronounced changes in the cardio‐respiratory physiology of vertebrates. While a lot is known about the physiological transitions required for air‐breathing evolution, there is limited information available on the evolutionary dynamics in breathing mode. Previous analyses suggest 34–67 independently origins of air‐breathing within extant vertebrates, but nothing is known about when in geological time air‐breathing originated or if air‐breathing has been secondarily lost. This study aimed to 1) provide more robust estimates on the number of air‐breathing origins, 2) identify if air‐breathing has been secondarily lost within clades of air‐breathing fishes, and 3) identify the timing of these events. To do this, we used an updated list of air‐breathing fishes, a fully resolved, time‐calibrated fish phylogeny and Bayesian phylogenetic comparative methods. We show that air‐breathing evolved 74–80 times within extant vertebrates, which is significantly higher the previously proposed 34–67 independent origins. Further, we show strong support for 7 secondary losses of air‐breathing, where pure water‐breathing was adapted from an air‐breathing ancestor. Finally, we show that the majority of air‐breathing clades radiated within the last 65 million years. This study adds novel dimensions to the evolution of air‐breathing and identifies an unprecedented evolutionary plasticity in breathing mode, where air‐breathing has been gained and lost repeatedly during the evolutionary history of vertebrates. Support or Funding Information Christian Damsgaard is supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207