Modeling spinal locomotor circuits for movements in developing zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many spinal circuits dedicated to locomotor control have been identified in the developing zebrafish. How these circuits operate together to generate the various swimming movements during development remains to be clarified. In this study, we iteratively built models of developing zebrafish spinal circuits coupled to simplified musculoskeletal models that reproduce coiling and swimming movements. The neurons of the models were based upon morphologically or genetically identified populations in the developing zebrafish spinal cord. We simulated intact spinal circuits as well as circuits with silenced neurons or altered synaptic transmission to better understand the role of specific spinal neurons. Analysis of firing patterns and phase relationships helped to identify possible mechanisms underlying the locomotor movements of developing zebrafish. Notably, our simulations demonstrated how the site and the operation of rhythm generation could transition between coiling and swimming. The simulations also underlined the importance of contralateral excitation to multiple tail beats. They allowed us to estimate the sensitivity of spinal locomotor networks to motor command amplitude, synaptic weights, length of ascending and descending axons, and firing behavior. These models will serve as valuable tools to test and further understand the operation of spinal circuits for locomotion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".