Cribriform plate size documents loss of olfactory receptor genes in the early evolution of whales, dolphins, and porpoises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Having transitioned from a terrestrial lifestyle to an aquatic one over evolutionary time, cetaceans are prime subjects for the study of reduced olfaction. Here, we investigated the size of the cribriform plate in extant Artiodactyla and fossil whales. We also investigated the number of olfactory receptor (OR) genes encoded in artiodactyl genomes and found that the size of the cribriform plate is positively correlated with the number of OR genes among extant species. We extended this finding to fossil whales and estimated that a loss of genes occurred during the early/middle Eocene, before cetaceans became obligately aquatic. Extant toothed whales have reduced olfaction, but two Miocene toothed whales are predicted to have as many or more OR genes than extant baleen whales. Therefore, some fossil toothed whales might have had some olfaction. For their body size, extant baleen whales have cribriform plates that are similar in size to that of the dromedary camel, which is consistent with the growing evidence that baleen whales have retained some olfaction. As the first quantitative, morphological analysis of cetacean olfaction across the land-to-water transition, our study facilitates further study of olfactory neuroanatomy and the link between olfactory phenotype and genotype.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".