Calcified gill filaments increase respiratory function in fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphology of fish gills is closely linked to aerobic capacity and tolerance of environmental stressors such as hypoxia. The importance of gill surface area is well studied, but little is known about how the mechanical properties of gill tissues determine function. In some fishes, the bases of the gill filaments are surrounded by a calcified ‘sheath' of unknown function. We tested two non-exclusive hypotheses: (i) calcified gill filaments enhance water flow through the gill basket, improving aquatic respiratory function, and (ii) in amphibious fishes, calcification provides support for gills out of water. In a survey of more than 100 species of killifishes and related orders, we found filament calcification was widespread and thus probably arose before the evolution of amphibious lifestyles in killifishes. Calcification also did not differ between amphibious and fully aquatic species, but terrestrial acclimation caused calcium deposition on the filaments of the killifishKryptolebias marmoratus, suggesting a possible structural role when out of water. We found strong evidence supporting a role for filament calcification in enhancing aquatic respiratory function. First, acclimation to increased respiratory demands (hypoxia, elevated temperatures) induced calcium deposition on the filaments ofK. marmoratus. Next, gentle removal of filament calcification decreased branchial resistance to water flow, indicating disruption of gill basket positioning. Thus, the mechanical properties of the gill filaments appear to play an important and previously unappreciated role in determining fish respiratory function.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".