MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exposure to Simulated Microgravity Affects Development of the Skull in Danio rerio

2012· article· en· W3173588572 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tamara A. Franz‐Odendaal, Sara C. Edsall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanioZebrafishBiologyJuvenileSkullAnatomyMelanophoreZoologyContext (archaeology)OntogenyCraniofacialMorphometricsChromatophoreEcologyFisheryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine how exposure to simulated microgravity (SMG) affects development of the skull, zebrafish embryos were exposed to SMG starting at one of three developmental stages: 10, 12 or 14 hours post‐fertilization. Juvenile and adult fish were analyzed after exposure to SMG using whole‐mount staining and geometric morphometrics. Fish were examined for changes in melanophore surface area and number, in addition to changes in skull morphology. Analyses reveal an overall decrease in the surface area of melanophores and an increase in melanophore number over the period of a week in experimental and control groups; with significant differences in the number of melanophores on the first day after exposure. These effects are short‐term and do not persist in adults. Gross morphological analyses of whole‐mount stained adults, however, identified buckling in several (but not all) craniofacial bones. In conclusion, exposure to SMG affects both skeletal tissues and pigmentation in the head. These results will be discussed in context of germ layer origin. This is the first study examining the long‐term effects of exposure to SMG on zebrafish and provides valuable insight into phenotypic variation. Grant Funding Source : NSERC, Canada; and CSA, Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207