Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Magnetosensitivity of amphibian morphological pigmentation is light- and eye-dependent and consistent with the radical pair mechanism

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Weak static magnetic fields between 0.25 and 1 mT increase the number of perioptic melanophores in Xenopus laevis tadpoles, in a field-strength-, light-, and eye-dependent manner, and the measured dose-response curve is quantitatively repro

desk verdict Worth a serious look: real empirical result with honest modeling, but the eye-dependence claim is undermined by a ceiling confound in the enucleation experiment. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20513 v1 pith:7HCZUZ64 submitted 2026-07-07 physics.bio-ph q-bio.TOquant-ph

Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi , Gabriel E. Bertolesi , Sarah McFarlane , Christoph Simon This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phq-bio.TOquant-ph
keywords magnetosensitivityradicalpairmechanismmelanophoreXenopuslaeviscryptochromemorphologicalpigmentationspindynamicsquantumbiology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that static magnetic fields of 0.25–1 mT increase the number of perioptic melanophores—pigment cells around the eye—in Xenopus laevis tadpoles, with the effect growing with field strength and amounting to roughly 37–75% above control. It reports that the response requires both light and an intact eye: constant darkness and surgical eye removal both abolish the field-induced increase, while darkness alone raises baseline pigmentation. The measured field-strength dependence is then compared with spin-dynamics simulations of a radical pair, using either a flavin–tryptophan pair with cryptochrome hyperfine couplings or a generic proton-only pair; both reproduce the data with a single amplification factor. If correct, this is the first evidence that morphological (cell-number) pigmentation in a vertebrate is magnetosensitive and consistent with the radical-pair mechanism, and it establishes tadpole pigmentation as a tractable system for studying quantum spin effects in living tissue.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the perioptic melanophore count, scored blind after melatonin treatment, which serves as a quantitative readout of light-dependent repression of pigment-cell differentiation. The mechanism invoked is the radical pair mechanism: a singlet-born pair of radicals undergoes coherent singlet–triplet interconversion under the Zeeman and hyperfine interactions, and the triplet yield depends on magnetic field strength. The paper simulates this in Liouville space with Haberkorn spin-selective recombination, fixed spin relaxation, and a single amplification factor α mapping the computed yield change to the measured pigmentation change. The field dependence of the triplet yiel

What would settle it

Raise tadpoles with a graded eye manipulation (e.g., partial photoreceptor ablation or optic-nerve crush) that raises the perioptic melanophore baseline by only ~30–40% rather than the ~1.9-fold rise seen after full enucleation, then expose to 0.5 mT. If the field response is absent despite the baseline not being near maximum, the eye-dependence claim is supported; if the response reappears, the original null was a ceiling artifact. Separately, test the RPM prediction of a sign reversal in the field effect around 1.5–3 mT with temperature-controlled Helmholtz coils.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a weak static magnetic field changes morphological pigmentation in a whole vertebrate. In Xenopus laevis tadpoles, perioptic melanophore number increases in a field-strength-dependent manner over 0.25–1 mT, with the response emerging only after the retina becomes functional and only when light is present; enucleation or constant darkness removes it. The field dependence—steep rise from 0.125 to 0.25 mT followed by a plateau near 40%—is quantitatively matched by radical-pair spin-dynamics simulations: a flavin–tryptophan radical pair with hyperfine couplings from avian CRY4 fits with rates kS≈5×10^7 s−1, kT≈2×10^5 s−1 and amplification α≈15, while a generic four-

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the null result in enucleated tadpoles proves the magnetic sensor is in the eye; but because enucleation raised the baseline melanophore count to a near-maximal level, the null could just as easily be a saturation ceiling, and if so the eye-dependence claim loses its main direct support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the effect is real, morphological pigmentation becomes a cell-count readout of radical-pair magnetoreception in a vertebrate, distinct from the fast pigment-translocation responses studied earlier.
  • It strengthens the cryptochrome hypothesis by showing that a light- and eye-dependent magnetic response in a species that retains CRY4 behaves like a radical-pair compass.
  • The model predicts the response should turn over and reverse sign at higher fields (roughly 1.5–3 mT), a signature that can be tested directly.
  • A resonant radiofrequency field should disrupt the response, offering a diagnostic that does not require knowing the radical pair's identity.
  • Loss-of-function experiments (CRY4 knockout) in Xenopus should abolish the magnetic response, providing a causal test of cryptochrome's necessity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the eye-dependence claim rests on a single enucleation experiment in which the eyeless baseline rose ~1.9-fold above control—already higher than the ~1.37-fold level that the magnetic field achieves in intact animals. The absence of a further field effect could be a saturation ceiling rather than loss of the magnetic sensor; the paper's occlusion argument addresses the darknes
  • Editorial inference: if the ceiling interpretation is wrong and the eye is genuinely required, the non-additivity of darkness and magnetic field suggests both act on the same light-dependent repressive pathway. That could be tested with graded photoreceptor disruption rather than full enucleation.
  • Editorial inference: the generic radical pair fits with α≈1.6, while flavin–tryptophan needs α≈15, hinting that the operative radical pair may be simpler than the canonical cryptochrome FAD–Trp pair. This could be probed by transient-absorption spectroscopy of candidate radicals or by radiofrequency spectroscopy to measure hyperfine fingerprints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on Xenopus laevis tadpoles in which perioptic melanophore numbers are counted blind to treatment after exposure to static magnetic fields (0.06–1 mT) from Helmholtz coils, with temperature control and varying light conditions. The authors report statistically significant increases at 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mT, with the effect absent at 0.06 mT and, in the main corrected analysis, at 0.125 mT. Enucleation raises the baseline ~1.9-fold and abolishes the detectable field response; constant darkness also raises the baseline and blocks the response. The authors then fit a spin-dynamics radical-pair model (flavin–tryptophan or a generic (H,H)–(H,H) pair) to the four-point field-dependence curve using fitted amplification α, rate constants, and (for the generic pair) hyperfine couplings, and conclude the data are consistent with the radical pair mechanism. They frame the work as the first demonstration that morphological pigmentation is magnetosensitive and RPM-compatible in a vertebrate.

Significance. The empirical core is novel and potentially important: if the effect is real, it provides a quantifiable whole-organism readout for weak-field biology and a genetically tractable vertebrate system. The authors' experimental care is evident: blind counting, N=3 independent experiments, multiple ANOVAs with post-hoc tests, standardized effect sizes, temperature monitoring, a disclosed discrepancy at 0.125 mT, and an explicit data/code availability statement. These are real strengths. However, the two headline mechanistic claims — 'eye-dependent' and 'quantitatively consistent with a radical pair mechanism' — are more assertive than the evidence supports. The enucleation result is vulnerable to a maximum-pigmentation ceiling interpretation, and the RPM agreement is an in-sample fit with several free parameters rather than a parameter-free prediction. The Discussion is appropriately cautious in several places, but the Abstract and Significance statement do not carry those caveats.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, Fig. 1B,C; Discussion] The claim that the response is eye-dependent rests on the enucleation experiment. Enucleation raises the baseline ~1.9-fold (g=2.04), while the intact 0.5 mT response is only ~1.37-fold. The null field effect in enucleated animals (g=0.00, p=0.997) is therefore equally consistent with a maximum-pigmentation ceiling as with removal of the magnetic sensor. The Discussion's anti-ceiling argument addresses the darkness arm (baseline 1.37×, below the eyeless level) and does not rescue the enucleation arm, where the baseline is at that eyeless level by construction. Moreover, the eye-intact response is not strongly graded above 0.25 mT (41%, 38%, 36% at 0.25/0.5/1.0 mT), so saturation cannot be dismissed. Please add a positive control (e.g., a stimulus that further increases melanophores above the enucleated baseline, or an enucleation condition with baseline near intact-control levels), or so
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (3), Fig. 2, Fig. S4] The claimed 'quantitative consistency' with a radical pair model is an in-sample fit to four points. α in Eq. (3) absorbs the overall amplitude by construction, and kS, kT (and for the generic pair the four hyperfine couplings) are fitted to the same four data points. Fig. S4 shows broad, overlapping data-consistent solution clouds for both pairs, and the authors themselves state that the data 'place no meaningful bound on the individual rate constants.' Thus the agreement in Fig. 2 demonstrates feasibility, not quantitative confirmation. The Discussion is appropriately cautious, but the Abstract ('quantitatively consistent with a radical pair model') and the Significance statement overstate the evidence. I recommend either providing an out-of-sample prediction (the predicted non-monotonicity or the radiofrequency effect) or labeling the modeling as a feasibility test throughout the pape
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supp. Fig. S5; §2.1] The 0.125 mT point is reported as null in the main text but is flagged p<0.05 by uncorrected Welch's t-test in Supplementary Fig. S5. The disclosure in the caption is commendable, but the main text should explicitly state which analysis is pre-specified as primary, and both results should be shown or described together.
  2. [Methods: Statistical analysis] The statistical section only says 'multiple ANOVA' followed by Tukey. It is not clear whether the three independent experiments (N=3) are treated as a random effect or blocking factor, or whether individual tadpoles are pooled as independent units. Please specify the full model, including the unit of analysis, so that the p-values can be interpreted.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The Fig. 2 legend says bars give the 'measured range,' while Fig. 1E uses mean±95% CI. Use consistent error-bar conventions and state in the figure legend exactly what the bars represent.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'field-strength-dependent manner' is stronger than the shown data, which display a threshold near 0.25 mT and then a plateau (41%, 38%, 36%). Consider wording such as 'a threshold-and-plateau field dependence' or specify that the dependence is most evident between 0.125 and 0.25 mT.
  5. [Figs. 1E; Supp. Fig. S5] Please reconcile the n values and statistical tests between Fig. 1E and Supp. Fig. S5: the main text says multiple ANOVA with Tukey, whereas the supplement labels comparisons with Welch's t-test. A reader should be able to tell which test is used for each reported asterisk.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

RPM 'quantitative consistency' is an in-sample fit: amplitude is absorbed by the fitted α, and shape is carried by unconstrained fitted rates, so the 'reproduction' is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2/Fig. 2; Methods 'Spin dynamics simulations', Eq. (3)]
    "The magnetic-field effect was defined as the percentage change in ΦT relative to a reference field Bref = 0.05 mT (approximately the local geomagnetic intensity) and mapped onto the measured pigmentation response by a single linear amplification factor α[23, 24]: MFE(B) = α100[ΦT(B)/ΦT(Bref)−1].(3) The decay rates kS and kT and α were fitted ... against the measured field-strength dependence using the Differential Evolution algorithm."

    The model's vertical scale is a free parameter α fitted to the very four-point curve it is then said to reproduce, so by Eq. (3) the amplitude agreement is forced by construction. The shape is also fitted: kS, kT (and for the generic pair, the hyperfine couplings) are adjusted to the same data, with 741/1500 data-consistent parameter sets spanning broad, overlapping kS/kT ranges. Thus the 'quantitative consistency' asserted in the Abstract and Significance is an in-sample fit rather than an independent test, partially circular when presented as support for the RPM. The paper's own caveat that the data 'do not constrain either pair’s recombination and escape rates' and that the modelling shows only feasibility tempers, but does not eliminate, the circularity.

full rationale

The only defensible circular step is the RPM modelling: Eq. (3) maps triplet yield to the measured pigmentation response using a fitted amplification factor α, and the fitted rates (and, for the generic pair, fitted hyperfine couplings) are then reported as 'quantitatively reproducing' the same measured field-strength dependence. This is in-sample fitting—the amplitude is absorbed by α and the shape by loosely constrained rate constants—so the 'consistency' claim is partly circular. However, the paper is unusually transparent about this: it states the data do not constrain the rates, calls the modelling a feasibility demonstration rather than identification, and offers an independently falsifiable prediction (non-monotonicity at higher fields) that is not circular. The eye-dependence claim is confounded by a possible melanophore ceiling in the enucleation experiment (the Discussion's anti-ceiling argument addresses the darkness arm, not the enucleation arm), but that is a correctness/interpretation risk, not a circularity. Self-citations to the authors' prior work on light/eye control of melanophore differentiation are background support, not load-bearing for the magnetic-field effect itself. On balance, the central 'reproduction' is partially forced by fitted inputs, warranting a score of 4, not higher, because the paper acknowledges the limitations and does not conceal the fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's mechanistic contribution is a consistency fit, not a first-principles derivation: the model imports standard spin dynamics, a cryptochrome photocycle picture, a fixed relaxation rate, and an ad hoc linear amplification bridge, then fits rates and couplings to the four measured points. The experimental observation itself carries the independent evidentiary weight; the model section establishes feasibility only, as the Discussion acknowledges.

free parameters (4)
  • Amplification factor α = 15.5 (flavin pair); 1.61 (generic pair)
    Linear scale in Eq. (3) mapping model triplet-yield change to the macroscopic pigmentation response; the key free parameter that absorbs all biological gain.
  • Singlet recombination rate k_S = 5.1e7 s-1 (flavin); 5.2e7 s-1 (generic); searched in 1e4–1e8 s-1
    Fitted to the four-point field dependence; the paper reports the rates are unconstrained with broad overlapping data-consistent ranges.
  • Triplet/escape rate k_T = 1.9e5 s-1 (flavin); 6.8e6 s-1 (generic)
    Fitted to the field dependence as for k_S; not meaningfully constrained by the data.
  • Generic pair hyperfine couplings (4×1H) = a_A = 0.94, 0.73 mT; a_B = 0.76, 0.89 mT (best fit within |a| ∈ [0.4,1.0] mT)
    Fitted for the generic (H,H)–(H,H) pair within a physically plausible organic-radical range imposed a priori by the authors.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Haberkorn spin-selective recombination and Lindblad relaxation describe in vivo radical-pair spin dynamics (Eq. 2)
    Standard quantum master-equation framework imported wholesale from the RPM literature.
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian can be truncated to isotropic Zeeman + hyperfine terms, neglecting exchange, dipolar, and nuclear-Zeeman couplings (Eq. 1)
    Justified only by 'because all retained interactions are isotropic, the predicted effect depends only on the magnitude of B0, consistent with our intensity-only measurements' — an orientation-free modeling choice, not an independently verified property.
  • domain assumption A cryptochrome photocycle radical pair of the FAD(•−)–TrpH(•+) type exists in Xenopus and is a relevant sensor
    The biologically motivated model; HFCCs are taken from robin CRY4 literature. The authors explicitly leave the pair's identity open, so this is an assumption about the sensor class.
  • domain assumption Fixed isotropic spin relaxation k_relax = 1e6 s-1
    Imported from in vitro CRY4 work (Xu et al. 2021); the in vivo coherence level is not measured in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The macroscopic pigmentation response is a linear function of triplet-yield change, via a single amplification factor α (Eq. 3)
    The paper states α 'represents the biological gain... we treat it as a single free scaling parameter rather than modelling its origin' — an unmodeled bridge between spin chemistry and developmental phenotype.
  • domain assumption Light acting through the eye represses perioptic melanophore differentiation (the framework into which the MF effect is slotted)
    Taken from the authors' own prior work (refs. 17, 18); the occlusion argument in §2.1 depends on this framework and on no other light pathway contributing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetosensitivity of amphibian morphological pigmentation is light- and eye-dependent and consistent with the radical pair mechanism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HCZUZ64

@misc{pith2026260720513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetosensitivity of amphibian morphological pigmentation is light- and eye-dependent and consistent with the radical pair mechanism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HCZUZ64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20513}
}
read the original abstract

Weak magnetic fields influence a wide range of biological processes, yet the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The radical pair mechanism (RPM), which involves quantum spin dynamics, is a leading hypothesis. Here we show that weak magnetic fields modulate morphological pigmentation -- specifically, the number of perioptic melanophores -- in Xenopus laevis tadpoles in a field-strength-dependent manner. The response is light- and eye-dependent. The observed field-strength dependence is quantitatively consistent with a radical pair model. These properties are reminiscent of the light-dependent magnetoreception that is thought to operate in migratory birds, and establish amphibian pigmentation as a tractable vertebrate system for the study of radical-pair quantum biology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Low magnetic fields increase morphological pigmentation. A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modeling magnetic field effects on perioptic melanophores in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cryptochrome photocycle and candidate radical pairs. (Left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Cochran, Henrik Mouritsen, and Martin Wikelski

    William W. Cochran, Henrik Mouritsen, and Martin Wikelski. Migrating songbirds recal- ibrate their magnetic compass daily from twilight cues.Science, 304(5669):405–408, April 2004

    2004

  2. [2]

    Clivia Lisowski, Michael Quetting, Daniela Klaus, Lisa Lazarevski, Lea Seep, Maximilian Germer, Jian Li, Inge M¨ uller, Daniel Zuniga, Wolfgang Fiedler, Dina K. N. Dechmann, Kasper Thorup, Jan Hasenauer, Lars Fester, Stefanie Kuerten, Michael Farle, Ulf Wied- wald, Martin Wikelski, and Christian Kurts. Homing pigeon navigation relies on super- paramagneti...

    2026

  3. [3]

    Bradlaugh, Giorgio Fedele, Anna L

    Adam A. Bradlaugh, Giorgio Fedele, Anna L. Munro, Celia Napier Hansen, John M. Hares, Sanjai Patel, Charalambos P. Kyriacou, Alex R. Jones, Ezio Rosato, and Richard A. Baines. Essential elements of radical pair magnetosensitivity in drosophila.Nature, 615(7950):111–116, February 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Verification of quantum biological predictions for weak magnetic field effects on superoxide in planarians.PNAS Nexus, 5(5), April 2026

    Rishabh Rishabh, Jana Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, Wendy S Beane, and Christoph Simon. Verification of quantum biological predictions for weak magnetic field effects on superoxide in planarians.PNAS Nexus, 5(5), April 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    Long-term exposure to a hypomagnetic field attenuates adult hippocampal neurogenesis and cognition.Nature Communications, 12(1), February 2021

    Bingfang Zhang, Lei Wang, Aisheng Zhan, Min Wang, Lanxiang Tian, Weixiang Guo, and Yongxin Pan. Long-term exposure to a hypomagnetic field attenuates adult hippocampal neurogenesis and cognition.Nature Communications, 12(1), February 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Dufor, S

    T. Dufor, S. Grehl, A. D. Tang, M. Doulazmi, M. Traor´ e, N. Debray, C. Dubacq, Z.-D. Deng, J. Mariani, A. M. Lohof, and R. M. Sherrard. Neural circuit repair by low-intensity magnetic stimulation requires cellular magnetoreceptors and specific stimulation patterns. Science Advances, 5(10), October 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Woodward

    Noboru Ikeya and Jonathan R. Woodward. Cellular autofluorescence is magnetic field sensitive.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(3), January 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Siguenza, Robert P

    Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, Caleb R. Siguenza, Robert P. Smith, Christoph Simon, and Travis J. A. Craddock. Tubulin polymerization dynamics are influenced by magnetic isotope effects consistent with the radical pair mechanism.Science Advances, 12(7), February 2026

    2026

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Magnetic field effects in biology from the perspective of the radical pair mechanism.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 19(193), August 2022

    Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi and Christoph Simon. Magnetic field effects in biology from the perspective of the radical pair mechanism.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 19(193), August 2022. 11

    2022

  2. [10]

    P. J. Hore and Henrik Mouritsen. The radical-pair mechanism of magnetoreception.Annual Review of Biophysics, 45(1):299–344, July 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Steiner and Thomas Ulrich

    Ulrich E. Steiner and Thomas Ulrich. Magnetic field effects in chemical kinetics and related phenomena.Chemical Reviews, 89(1):51–147, January 1989

    1989

  4. [12]

    Henrik Mouritsen, Ulrike Janssen-Bienhold, Miriam Liedvogel, Gesa Feenders, Julia Stalle- icken, Petra Dirks, and Reto Weiler. Cryptochromes and neuronal-activity markers colo- calize in the retina of migratory birds during magnetic orientation.Proceedings of the National Acad...

    2004

  5. [13]

    Jarocha, Tilo Zollitsch, Marcin Konowalczyk, Kevin B

    Jingjing Xu, Lauren E. Jarocha, Tilo Zollitsch, Marcin Konowalczyk, Kevin B. Henbest, Sabine Richert, Matthew J. Golesworthy, Jessica Schmidt, Victoire D´ ejean, Daniel J. C. Sowood, Marco Bassetto, Jiate Luo, Jessica R. Walton, Jessica Fleming, Yujing Wei, Tommy L. Pitcher, G...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Th. Leucht. Effects of weak magnetic fields on background adaptation in xenopus laevis. Naturwissenschaften, 74(4):192–194, April 1987

    1987

  7. [15]

    Th. Leucht. Magnetic effects on tail-fin melanophores ofXenopus laevistadpolesin vitro. Naturwissenschaften, 74(9):441–443, September 1987

    1987

  8. [16]

    T. Leucht. Interactions of light and gravity reception with magnetic fields inXenopus laevis.Journal of Experimental Biology, 148(1):325–334, January 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Bertolesi, Carrie L

    Gabriel E. Bertolesi, Carrie L. Hehr, Hayden Munn, and Sarah McFarlane. Two light- activated neuroendocrine circuits arising in the eye trigger physiological and morphological pigmentation.Pigment Cell &amp; Melanoma Research, 29(6):688–701, October 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Bertolesi, and Sarah McFarlane

    Karen Atkinson-Leadbeater, Gabriel E. Bertolesi, and Sarah McFarlane. Visual input regulates melanophore differentiation.Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 12, August 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Identification and characterization of cryptochrome4 in the ovary of western clawed frog xenopus tropicalis

    Takahiro Takeuchi, Yoko Kubo, Keiko Okano, and Toshiyuki Okano. Identification and characterization of cryptochrome4 in the ovary of western clawed frog xenopus tropicalis. Zoological Science, 31(3):152, March 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Haug, Matthias Gesemann, Viktor Lazovi´ c, and Stephan C.F

    Marion F. Haug, Matthias Gesemann, Viktor Lazovi´ c, and Stephan C.F. Neuhauss. Eumetazoan cryptochrome phylogeny and evolution.Genome Biology and Evolution, 7(2):601–619, January 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Atticus Pinzon-Rodriguez, Staffan Bensch, and Rachel Muheim. Expression patterns of cryptochrome genes in avian retina suggest involvement of cry4 in light-dependent magne- toreception.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(140):20180058, March 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Does timing of axon outgrowth influence initial retinotectal topography in xeno- pus?The Journal of Neuroscience, 4(4):1130–1152, April 1984

    CE Holt. Does timing of axon outgrowth influence initial retinotectal topography in xeno- pus?The Journal of Neuroscience, 4(4):1130–1152, April 1984

    1984

  15. [23]

    Kattnig, Emrys W

    Daniel R. Kattnig, Emrys W. Evans, Victoire D´ ejean, Charlotte A. Dodson, Mark I. Wal- lace, Stuart R. Mackenzie, Christiane R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore. Chemical amplification of magnetic field effects relevant to avian magnetoreception.Nature Chemistry, 8(4):384–391, February...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Player, Edward D

    Thomas C. Player, Edward D. A. Baxter, Sarah Allatt, and P. J. Hore. Amplification of weak magnetic field effects on oscillating reactions.Scientific Reports, 11(1), May 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Solov’yov, and Henrik Mouritsen

    Anja G¨ unther, Angelika Einwich, Emil Sjulstok, Regina Feederle, Petra Bolte, Karl- Wilhelm Koch, Ilia A. Solov’yov, and Henrik Mouritsen. Double-cone localization and seasonal expression pattern suggest a role in magnetoreception for european robin cryp- tochrome 4.Current B...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Bertolesi, Nilakshi Debnath, Hannan R

    Gabriel E. Bertolesi, Nilakshi Debnath, Hannan R. Malik, Lawrence L. H. Man, and Sarah McFarlane. Type ii opsins in the eye, the pineal complex and the skin of xenopus laevis: Using changes in skin pigmentation as a readout of visual and circadian activity.Frontiers in Neuroan...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Romero, Flavio S

    Neda Heshami, Ricardo D. Romero, Flavio S. J. de Souza, Gabriel E. Bertolesi, and Sarah McFarlane. Pinopsin regulates melatonin production and daily locomotor activity: Func- tional insights from gene-edited ¡i¿xenopus¡/i¿ tadpoles.Journal of Pineal Research, 78(2), January 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Benjamin, Luca Gerhards, Ilia A

    Philip L. Benjamin, Luca Gerhards, Ilia A. Solov’yov, and P. J. Hore. Magnetosensitivity of model flavin–tryptophan radical pairs in a dynamic protein environment.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 129(24):5937–5947, June 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Jean Deviers, Fabien Cailliez, Aur´ elien de la Lande, and Daniel R. Kattnig. Anisotropic magnetic field effects in the re-oxidation of cryptochrome in the presence of scavenger radicals.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 156(2), January 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Wiley, July 2003

    Fabian Gerson and Walter Huber.Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy of Organic Rad- icals. Wiley, July 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    Solov’yov, and P

    Siu Ying Wong, Yujing Wei, Henrik Mouritsen, Ilia A. Solov’yov, and P. J. Hore. Cryp- tochrome magnetoreception: four tryptophans could be better than three.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 18(184), November 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Chadsley Atkins, Kieran Bajpai, Jeremy Rumball, and Daniel R. Kattnig. On the optimal relative orientation of radicals in the cryptochrome magnetic compass.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 151(6), August 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Blitz and Takuya Nakayama

    Ira L. Blitz and Takuya Nakayama. Crispr–cas9 mutagenesis in xenopus tropicalis for phenotypic analyses in the f0 generation and beyond.Cold Spring Harbor Protocols, 2022(3):pdb.prot106971, July 2021

    2022

  26. [34]

    Rocca, G

    P. Rocca, G. Oliveri, and A. Massa. Differential evolution as applied to electromagnetics. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 53(1):38–49, February 2011. 13 Supplementary Materials A B Figure S1:Simulated magnetic field distribution generated by the Helmholtz coils, provi...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.