Appetite regulating genes may contribute to herbivory versus carnivory trophic divergence in haplochromine cichlids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding is a complex behaviour comprised of satiety control, foraging, ingestion and subsequent digestion. Cichlids from the East African Great Lakes are renowned for their diverse trophic specializations, largely predicated on highly variable jaw morphologies. Thus, most research has focused on dissecting the genetic, morphological and regulatory basis of jaw and teeth development in these species. Here for the first time we explore another aspect of feeding, the regulation of appetite related genes that are expressed in the brain and control satiety in cichlid fishes. Using qPCR analysis, we first validate stably expressed reference genes in the brain of six haplochromine cichlid species at the end of larval development prior to foraging. We next evaluate the expression of 16 appetite related genes in herbivorous and carnivorous species from the parallel radiations of Lake Tanganyika, Malawi and Victoria. Interestingly, we find increased expression of two appetite-regulating genes (anorexigenic genes), cart and npy2r, in the brain of carnivorous species in all the three lakes. This supports the notion that appetite gene regulation might play a part in determining trophic niche specialization in divergent cichlid species, already prior to exposure to different diets. Our study contributes to the limited body of knowledge on the neurological circuitry that controls feeding transitions and adaptations in cichlids and other teleosts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".