MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412347335 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adv7576

Structural and genetic determinants of zebrafish functional brain networks

2025· article· en· W4412347335 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Légaré, Mado Lemieux, Vincent Boily, Sandrine Poulin, Arthur Légaré, Patrick Desrosiers, Paul De Koninck

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalGrain Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceZebrafishConnectomeNeuroimagingBiologyCalcium imagingVertebrateModularity (biology)Functional connectivityComputer scienceEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network science has revealed universal brain connectivity principles across species. However, several macroscopic network features established in human neuroimaging studies remain underexplored at cellular scales in small animal models. Here, we use whole-brain calcium imaging in larval zebrafish to investigate the structural and genetic basis of functional brain networks. Mesoscopic functional connectivity (FC) robustly captures the individuality of larvae and reflects structural connectivity (SC) derived from single-neuron reconstructions. Several connectome properties, including diffusion mechanisms and indirect pathways, predict interregional correlations. SC and FC share a hierarchical modular architecture, with structural modules shaping spontaneous and stimulus-driven activity patterns. Visual stimuli and tail monitoring reveal a functional gradient that coincides with sensorimotor functions. Last, regional expression levels of specific genes predict interregional FC. Our findings reproduce key mammalian brain network features, demonstrating larval zebrafish as a powerful model for studying large-scale network phenomena in a small and optically accessible vertebrate brain.

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 score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207