Hind-Limb Regeneration in the Dwarf African Clawed Frog, Hymenochirus boettgeri (Anura: Pipidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to regenerate lost or amputated limbs varies greatly among amphibians. To gain a better understanding of phylogenetic and ontogenetic factors influencing regenerative ability, regeneration in tadpoles of Hymenochirus boettgeri is described for the first time, then compared to data from closely related Xenopus laevis. Hind limbs of tadpoles of H. boettgeri were amputated at two different levels along the proximo-distal axis of the limb (at the knee and ankle joints), at stages ranging from 52 to 59. Tadpoles were allowed to recover for 15 or 20 days, at which times the amount of regeneration was examined. Observations were made through external morphology and whole-mount histological staining. Hymenochirus, like X. laevis and indeed like most anurans, gradually loses the ability to regenerate hind-limb structures as it progresses through metamorphosis, and this loss occurs in a proximo-distal direction; the ability to regenerate is retained longer, distally. Hymenochirus and Xenopus show similar patterns of limb and digit regeneration. In both pipid species, loss of regenerative ability appears to be correlated with the onset of ossification in the hind limb, although timing of this event differs between the two species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".