MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Histological Diversity And Evolution Of Lizard Osteoderms

2022· article· en· W4225422626 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew K. Vickaryous, Catherine J. Williams, Gabriella Willan, Alex Kirby, Anthony Herrel, Loïc Kéver, Mehran Moazen, Arsalan Marghoub, Shreya Rai, Arhat Abzhanov, Susan E. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicMedicinal Plant Pharmacodynamics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLizardDiversity (politics)BiologyZoologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many reptiles reinforce the dermis with discrete mineralized organs known as osteoderms. Among lizards, osteoderms demonstrate species‐specific differences in size, shape, and distribution across the body. Whether osteoderms also vary in details of tissue composition, including the organization of the fibrillar matrix, remains unclear. Here, we investigate osteoderm histology in three species‐rich lizard groups: gekkotans (geckos), scincids (skinks), and anguimorphans (anguids, helodermatids, and related taxa). With one possible exception, all lizard osteoderms are dominated by bone tissue. Unexpectedly, representative members of all the major groups develop an enigmatic, collagen‐poor capping tissue. Gekkotan osteoderms are rare (<2% of species) and demonstrate considerable histological heterogeneity between species. This includes variation in bone matrices, and the development of additional (non‐osseous) skeletal tissues. In the gecko genus Geckolepis , putative osteoderms appear to lack bone and instead are composed of dense collagen plates capped by a vitreous collagen‐poor tissue. Unlike geckos, osteoderms are common to virtually all skinks. Most skink osteoderms are compound elements, composed of multiple conjoined smaller plates (referred to as osteodermites). Histologically, skink osteoderms are dominated by lamellar bone with well‐organized Sharpey’s fibres linking adjacent plates together and some woven and parallel‐fibred bone. Most species develop the collagen‐poor capping tissue, particularly where adjacent osteodermites articulate with one another. Osteoderms are also common to many anguimorphans, but the histology varies considerably between taxa. While anguid and helodermatid osteoderms demonstrate multiple bone matrices (woven‐fibred, parallel‐fibred, lamellar bone, and Sharpey‐fibred), Shinisaurus osteoderms are primarily woven‐fibred and Sharpey‐fibred bone, and those of Varanus are mostly parallel‐fibred bone. Expression of the capping tissue also varies, from thick and well‐defined ( Heloderma ) to discontinuous (e.g., several anguids) or entirely absent ( Shinisaurus , Varanus ). We propose that the histological diversity observed in lizard osteoderms is driven by factors including phylogeny, ecology, and function. The identity of the capping tissue remains unresolved, but our findings reveal it is far more widespread than previously considered. The results presented here provide important steps towards understanding the diversity and evolution of the skeleton in the skin.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.413
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 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicMedicinal Plant Pharmacodynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207