MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396935653 · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2024.117125

Swim training induces distinct osseous gene expression patterns in anosteocytic and osteocytic teleost fish

2024· article· en· W4396935653 on OpenAlexafffund
Josephine T. Tauer, Tobias Thiele, Catherine Julien, Lior Ofer, Paul Zaslansky, Ron Shahar, Bettina M. Willie

Bibliographic record

VenueBone · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill University
FundersShriners Hospitals for ChildrenMcGill University
KeywordsFish boneMechanosensationOsteoblastOsteocyteZebrafishFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyBone canaliculusAdaptation (eye)Gene expressionAnatomyBone cellCell biologyGeneNeuroscienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional understanding of bone mechanosensation implicates osteocytes, canaliculi, and the lacunocanalicular network in biomechanical adaptation. However, recent findings challenge this notion, as shown in advanced teleost fish where anosteocytic bone lacking osteocytes are nevertheless responsive to mechanical load. To investigate specific molecular mechanisms involved in bone mechanoadaptation in osteocytic and anosteocytic fish bone, we conducted a 5-min single swim-training experiment with zebrafish and ricefish, respectively. Through RNASeq analysis of fish spines, analyzed at various time points following swim training, we uncovered distinct gene expression patterns in osteocytic and anosteocytic fish bones. Notably, osteocytic fish bone exhibited an early response to mechanical load, contrasting to a delayed response observed in anosteocytic fish bones, both within 8 h following stimulation. We identified an increase in osteoblast differentiation in anosteocytic bone following training, while chordoblast activity was delayed. This temporal response suggests a time-dependent adaptation in anosteocytic bone, indicating the presence of intricate feedback networks within bone that lacks osteocytes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoneSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207