Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to continuously grow and regenerate the gills throughout life is a remarkable property of fish and amphibians. Considering that gill regeneration was first described over one century ago, it is surprising that the underlying mechanisms of cell and tissue replacement in the gills remain poorly understood. By contrast, the mammalian lung is a largely quiescent organ in adults but is capable of facultative regeneration following injury. In the course of the past decade, it has been recognized that lungs contain a population of stem or progenitor cells with an extensive ability to restore tissue; however, despite recent advances in regenerative biology of the lung, the signaling pathways that underlie regeneration are poorly understood. In this Review, we discuss the common evolutionary and embryological origins shared by gills and mammalian lungs. These are evident in homologies in tissue structure, cell populations, cellular function and genetic pathways. An integration of the literature on gill and lung regeneration in vertebrates is presented using a comparative approach in order to outline the challenges that remain in these areas, and to highlight the importance of using aquatic vertebrates as model organisms. The study of gill regeneration in fish and amphibians, which have a high regenerative potential and for which genetic tools are widely available, represents a unique opportunity to uncover common signaling mechanisms that may be important for regeneration of respiratory organs in all vertebrates. This may lead to new advances in tissue repair following lung disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".