Lack of variation in nuclear DNA content in avian muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The avian pectoralis muscle demonstrates plasticity with regard to size, so that temperate birds facing winter conditions or birds enduring a migration bout tend to have significant increases in the size and mass of this tissue due to muscular hypertrophy. Myonuclear domain (MND), the volume of cytoplasm a myonuclei services, in the pectoralis muscle of birds seems to be altered during thermal stress or changing seasons. However, there is no information available regarding muscle DNA content or ploidy level within the avian pectoralis. Changes in muscle DNA content can be used in this tissue to aid in size and mass changes. Here, we hypothesized that long-distance migrants or temperate residents would use the process of endoreduplication to aid in altering muscle size. Mostly contradictory to our hypotheses, we found no differences in the mean muscle DNA content in any of the 62 species of birds examined in this study. We also found no correlations between mean muscle DNA content and other muscle structural measurements, such as the number of nuclei per millimeter of fiber, myonuclear domain, and fiber cross-sectional area. Thus, while avian muscle seems more phenotypically plastic than mammalian muscle, the biological processes surrounding myonuclear function may be more closely related to those seen in mammals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".