A Comparison of the Innate and Adaptive Immune Systems in Cartilaginous Fish, Ray-Finned Fish, and Lobe-Finned Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immune system is composed of two subsystems-the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The innate immune system is the first to respond to pathogens and does not retain memory of previous responses. Innate immune responses are evolutionarily older than adaptive responses and elements of innate immunity can be found in all multicellular organisms. If a pathogen persists, the adaptive immune system will engage the pathogen with specificity and memory. Several components of the adaptive system including immunoglobulins (Igs), T cell receptors (TCR), and major histocompatibility complex (MHC), are assumed to have arisen in the first jawed vertebrates-the Gnathostomata. This review will discuss and compare components of both the innate and adaptive immune systems in Gnathostomes, particularly in Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) and in Osteichthyes [bony fish: the Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) and the Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish)]. While many elements of both the innate and adaptive immune systems are conserved within these species and with higher level vertebrates, some elements have marked differences. Components of the innate immune system covered here include physical barriers, such as the skin and gastrointestinal tract, cellular components, such as pattern recognition receptors and immune cells including macrophages and neutrophils, and humoral components, such as the complement system. Components of the adaptive system covered include the fundamental cells and molecules of adaptive immunity: B lymphocytes (B cells), T lymphocytes (T cells), immunoglobulins (Igs), and major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Comparative studies in fish such as those discussed here are essential for developing a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of the immune system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".