Tissue-specific compensatory mechanisms maintain tissue architecture and body size independent of cell size in polyploid zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome duplications and ploidy transitions have occurred in nearly every major taxon of eukaryotes, but they are far more common in plants than in animals. Due to the conservation of the nuclear:cytoplasmic volume ratio increased DNA content results in larger cells. In plants, polyploid organisms are larger than diploids as cell number remains relatively constant. Conversely, vertebrate body size does not correlate with cell size and ploidy as vertebrates compensate for increased cell size to maintain tissue architecture and body size. This has historically been explained by a simple reduction in cell number that matches the increase in cell size maintaining body size as ploidy increases, but here we show that the compensatory mechanisms that maintain body size in triploid zebrafish are tissue-specific: A) erythrocytes respond in the classical pattern with a reduced number of larger erythrocytes in circulation, B) muscle, a tissue comprised of polynucleated muscle fibers, compensates by reducing the number of larger nuclei such that myofiber and myotome size in unaffected by ploidy, and C) vascular tissue compensates by thickening blood vessel walls, possibly at the expense of luminal diameter. Understanding the physiological implications of ploidy on tissue function requires a detailed description of the specific mechanisms of morphological compensation occurring in each tissue to understand how ploidy changes affect development and physiology. • Tissue-specific mechanisms compensate for changes in cell size. • Blastomere size, cleavage pattern and rate are not affected by ploidy. • Erythrocytes conform to the canonical pattern of ‘fewer but larger cells'. • Multinucleate skeletal muscle cells adjust the number of nuclei to maintain size. • Vasculature is comprised of the same number and pattern of larger endothelial cells.
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) | 0.000 | 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".