<i> col1a2 <sup>+</sup> </i> fibroblasts/muscle progenitors finetune xanthophore countershading by differentially expressing <i>csf1a/1b</i> in embryonic zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals evolve diverse pigment patterns to adapt to the natural environment. Countershading, characterized by a dark-colored dorsum and a light-colored ventrum, is one of the most prevalent pigment patterns observed in vertebrates. In this study, we reveal a mechanism regulating xanthophore countershading in zebrafish embryos. We found that csf1a and csf1b mutants altered xanthophore countershading differently: csf1a mutants lack ventral xanthophores, while csf1b mutants have reduced dorsal xanthophores. Further study revealed that csf1a is expressed throughout the trunk, whereas csf1b is expressed dorsally. Ectopic expression of csf1a or csf1b in neurons attracted xanthophores into the spinal cord. Blocking csf1 signaling by csf1ra mutants disrupts spinal cord distribution and normal xanthophores countershading. Single-cell RNA sequencing identified two col1a2 + populations: csf1a high csf1b high muscle progenitors and csf1a high csf1b low fibroblast progenitors. Ablation of col1a2 + fibroblast and muscle progenitors abolished xanthophore patterns. Our study suggests that fibroblast and muscle progenitors differentially express csf1a and csf1b to modulate xanthophore patterning, providing insights into the mechanism of countershading.
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".