MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319827694 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msad030

Adaptation of Antarctic Icefish Vision to Extreme Environments

2023· article· en· W4319827694 on OpenAlexafffund
Gianni M. Castiglione, Frances E. Hauser, Alexander Van Nynatten, Belinda S. W. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of South Carolina
KeywordsBiologyAdaptation (eye)Extreme environmentEvolutionary biologyEcologyZoologyGeneticsNeuroscienceBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme environments, such as Antarctic habitats, present major challenges for many biological processes. Antarctic icefishes (Crynotothenioidea) represent a compelling system to investigate the molecular basis of adaptation to cold temperatures. Here, we explore how the sub-zero habitats of Antarctic icefishes have impacted rhodopsin (RH1) function, the temperature-sensitive dim-light visual pigment found in rod photoreceptors. Using likelihood models and ancestral reconstruction, we find that accelerated evolutionary rates in icefish RH1 underlie unique amino acid mutations absent from other deep-dwelling fishes, introduced before (S160A) and during (V259M) the onset of modern polar conditions. Functional assays reveal that these mutations red-shift rhodopsin spectral absorbance, consistent with spectral irradiance under sea ice. These mutations also lower the activation energy associated with retinal release of the light-activated RH1, and accelerate its return to the dark state, likely compensating for a cold-induced decrease in kinetic rates. These are adaptations in key properties of rhodopsin that mediate rod sensitivity and visual performance in the cold dark seas of the Antarctic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207