Deformity or variation? Phenotypic diversity in the zebrafish vertebral column
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vertebral bodies are composed of two types of metameric elements, centra and arches, each of which is considered as a developmental module. Most parts of the teleost vertebral column have a one-to-one relationship between centra and arches, although, in all teleosts, this one-to-one relationship is lost in the caudal fin endoskeleton. Deviation from the one-to-one relationship occurs in most vertebrates, related to changes in the number of vertebral centra or to a change in the number of arches. In zebrafish, deviations also occur predominantly in the caudal region of the vertebral column. In-depth phenotypic analysis of wild-type zebrafish was performed using whole-mount stained samples, histological analyses and synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy 3D reconstructions. Three deviant centra phenotypes were observed: (i) fusion of two vertebral centra, (ii) wedge-shaped hemivertebrae and (iii) centra with reduced length. Neural and haemal arches and their spines displayed bilateral and unilateral variations that resemble vertebral column phenotypes of stem-ward actinopterygians or other gnathostomes as well as pathological conditions in extant species. Whether it is possible to distinguish variations from pathological alterations and whether alterations resemble ancestral conditions is discussed in the context of centra and arch variations in other vertebrate groups and basal actinopterygian 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".