Raman microscopy as a tool to study changes in chemical composition upon structural differentiation of <i>Ambystoma</i> embryo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is often used in regeneration studies because it reaches sexual maturity as aquatic larvae within 360 hours, and it can regenerate its appendages. In developing a spectroscopic approach for regeneration studies, in this contribution, we show that Raman confocal microscopy can be used as a diagnostic tool to describe the chemical composition of axolotl embryonal tissues at different stages of development. Experimental observations, supported by quantum chemistry studies on molecules reported or considered to be present in the tissues of the living organism, show that in the early stages of development (Harrison stage 11), there is only limited spatial differentiation of phospholipid, carotenoids and proteins, though, in the later stages of development (Harrison stage 33), differentiation of chemical species is possible and can be related to the development of tissues and organs. In particular, we were able to assess the oxidation state of proteins, their packing and the role of pigments in protection of cellular tissues. We believe the results presented here will be helpful for those involved in planning experiments to combine biochemistry, emission and Raman microscopy to research axolotl tissue regeneration mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".