MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410153702 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003157

A standardized nomenclature for the rods and cones of the vertebrate retina

2025· article· en· W4410153702 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Baden, Juan M Angueyra, Jenny M. Bosten, Shaun P. Collin, Bevil R. Conway, Fabio Cortesi, Karin Dedek, Thomas Euler, Iñigo Novales Flamarique, Anna Franklin, Silke Haverkamp, Almut Kelber, Stephan C. F. Neuhauss, Wei Li, Robert J. Lucas, Daniel Osorio, Karthik Shekhar, Dario Tommasini, Takeshi Yoshimatsu, Joseph C. Corbo

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNational Eye InstituteWellcome TrustLister Institute of Preventive MedicineLeverhulme TrustUK Research and InnovationMcKnight Foundation
KeywordsBiologyVertebrateOpsinNomenclatureRhodopsinEvolutionary biologyRetinaGeneGeneticsNeuroscienceTaxonomy (biology)RetinalZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertebrate photoreceptors have been studied for well over a century, but a fixed nomenclature for referring to orthologous cell types across diverse species has been lacking. Instead, photoreceptors have been variably-and often confusingly-named according to morphology, presence/absence of 'rhodopsin', spectral sensitivity, chromophore usage, and/or the gene family of the opsin(s) they express. Here, we propose a unified nomenclature for vertebrate rods and cones that aligns with the naming systems of other retinal cell classes and that is based on the photoreceptor type's putative evolutionary history. This classification is informed by the functional, anatomical, developmental, and molecular identities of the neuron as a whole, including the expression of deeply conserved transcription factors required for development. The proposed names will be applicable across all vertebrates and indicative of the widest possible range of properties, including their postsynaptic wiring, and hence will allude to their common and species-specific roles in vision. Furthermore, the naming system is open-ended to accommodate the future discovery of as-yet unknown photoreceptor types.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207