Aerobic glycolysis is important for zebrafish larval wound closure and tail regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The underlying mechanisms of appendage regeneration remain largely unknown and uncovering these mechanisms in capable organisms has far-reaching implications for potential treatments in humans. Recent studies implicate a requirement for metabolic reprogramming reminiscent of the Warburg effect during successful appendage and organ regeneration. As changes are thus predicted to be highly dynamic, methods permitting direct, real-time visualisation of metabolites at the tissue and organismal level would offer a significant advance in defining the influence of metabolism on regeneration and healing. We sought to examine whether glycolytic activity was altered during larval fin regeneration, utilising the genetically encoded biosensor, Laconic, enabling the spatiotemporal assessment of lactate levels in living zebrafish. We present evidence for a rapid increase in lactate levels within min following injury, with a role of aerobic glycolysis in actomyosin contraction and wound closure. We also find a second wave of lactate production, associated with overall larval tail regeneration. Chemical inhibition of glycolysis attenuates both the contraction of the wound and regrowth of tissue following tail amputation, suggesting aerobic glycolysis is necessary at two distinct stages of regeneration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".