MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196089145 · doi:10.1101/2021.08.17.456591

Embryonic and aglomerular kidney development in the bay pipefish, <i>Syngnathus leptorhynchus</i>

2021· preprint· en· W3196089145 on OpenAlexaff
Bianca R. Maters, Emily Stevenson, Peter D. Vize

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEmbryogenesisZebrafishOperculum (bryozoa)AnatomyOtic vesicleEmbryoKidneyZoologyIn situ hybridizationCell biologyEndocrinologyGeneticsGeneGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this report we describe the embryogenesis of the bay pipefish, Syngnathus leptorhynchus , and the organogenesis of its aglomerular kidney. Early development was analyzed via a series of montages and images documenting embryos collected from the brood pouches of pregnant males. Despite differences in terminal morphology between pipefish and common teleost models such as medaka and zebrafish, the embryogenesis of these highly advanced fishes is generally similar to that of other fishes. One of the unique features of these fishes is their utilization of an aglomerular kidney. Histological analysis revealed a single long, unbranched kidney tubule in late embryos. The development and structure of this organ was further investigated by cloning the sodium potassium ATPase alpha subunit, atp1a, from S. leptorhynchus and developing whole mount fluorescent in situ hybridization protocols for embryos of this species. Fluorescent stereoscopic and confocal visualization techniques were then used to characterize the 3D morphology of aglomerular kidneys in intact embryos. In all embryonic stages characterized, the aglomerular kidney is a single unbranched tube extending from just behind the head to the cloaca.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207