Variation in the endogenous intact waxes of odontocetes: There is more than one way to build an acoustic receiver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Odontocetes possess specialized fat bodies in and around the mandibles for sound reception which have complex topographical distributions of unique endogenous lipids (triacylglycerols and wax esters [WE]). Although there is diversity across species in the fatty acid (FA) and fatty alcohol (FAlc) components of WE, little is understood about the composition and placement of the intact molecules, which will likely impact acoustic function. We aimed to determine the composition and distribution of intact waxes in the jaw fats from five species representative of three odontocete families: delphinids, kogiids, and ziphiids. Total lipid content was similar in all groups, but the WE content of that lipid (21.3%–53.3% of total lipid) and the identity of intact WE molecules showed a high degree of variation, especially in the short‐chain fatty acid components. In contrast, the FAlc elements were surprisingly well conserved. There were 26 intact WE that were common to all species but the delphinids had 12 additional WE with short‐chain fatty acids ( i ‐5:0 specifically) not found in the other animals examined here. Our study suggests that this highly specialized tissue has evolved several different biochemical pathways, and that there may be multiple strategies for building acoustic fat bodies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".