Regeneration and development. An amphibian call to arms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unlike axolotls, the urodele Notophthalmus viridescens completes two metamorphoses and emerges from its aquatic environment to mate as a fully terrestrial adult. Larval and adult limb regeneration are commonly treated as roughly equivalent processes and, at least in part, as a recapitulation of embryonic development. RESULTS: We compared larval limb development to regeneration of both larval and adult forelimbs and found that there are substantial differences in developmental pattern among larvae and adults. The larval pattern of preaxial dominance is absent in adult regenerates: adult regenerates instead develop digits synchronously, and they do so before proximal autopodial elements have formed discrete aggregation zones. By contrast, larval regenerates follow a pattern of sequential digit formation from anterior to posterior, like their embryonic limb buds. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon these morphological clues, we conclude that larval regenerates are unlikely to exhibit features of epimorphic regeneration seen in adults, but are more likely to represent a form of developmental regulation. Furthermore, we confirm that post-metamorphic limb regeneration is not a simple recapitulation of ontology at the morphological level. These distinctions may help to explain and interpret some experiments and observations of regeneration in neotenic or paedomorphic urodeles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".