MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6920988987 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.27151706.v1

Additional file 1 of Keratinocytes drive the epithelial hyperplasia key to sea lice resistance in coho salmon

2024· article· en· W6920988987 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineImmunology and Microbiology
ThématiqueAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésViolinGeneGene expressionCluster of differentiationGenetic markerImmune system

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Figs. S1–S55 and Tables S1–S9. Figs. S1–S55: Fig. S1 Expression of marker genes within 23 identified cell clusters within Atlantic salmon fin and skin samples. Fig. S2 Expression of marker genes within 23 identified cell clusters within coho salmon fin and skin samples. Fig. S3 Violin plots of the expression of marker genes from Fig. 1c for each cell type detected within Atlantic salmon samples split by tissue type. Fig. S4 Violin plots of the expression of marker genes from Fig. 1d for each cell type detected within coho salmon samples split by tissue type. Fig. S5 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the mucous (1) cluster of the coho salmon dataset. Fig. S6 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the mucous (2) cluster of the coho salmon dataset. Fig. S7 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the undifferentiated cluster of the Atlantic salmon dataset. Fig. S8 Expression of CD45 (ptprc) in Atlantic salmon (a, b) and coho salmon (c, d). Fig. S9 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (1) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S10 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (2) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S11 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (3) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S12 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (4) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S13 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (5) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S14 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for B cells of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S15 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for dendritic cells of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S16 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for neutrophils of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S17 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the macrophages (1) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S18 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the macrophages (2) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S19 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the macrophages (3) cluster of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S20 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for monocytes of the Atlantic salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S21 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (1) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S22 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (2) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S23 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (3) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S24 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (4) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S25 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the T cells (5) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S26 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for B cells of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S27 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for dendritic cells of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S28 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for neutrophils of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S29 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the macrophages (1) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S30 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for the macrophages (2) cluster of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S31 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for monocytes of the coho salmon immune cells only data subset. Fig. S32 Expression of CD4 and CD8 paralogs in the immune cell subclusters identified within a) Atlantic salmon and b) coho salmon. Fig. S33 Number of genes detected as differentially expressed between the control samples and each of the infected time points for each cell type for a) Atlantic salmon and b) coho salmon. Fig. S34 Number of times each gene was detected as differentially expressed (1–5 time points) between any of the treatment time points and the control sample for a given cell type detected within the Atlantic salmon samples. Fig. S35 Number of times each gene was detected as differentially expressed (1–5 time points) between any of the treatment time points and the control sample for a given cell type detected within the coho salmon samples. Fig. S36 Significantly enriched biological GO terms for each Atlantic salmon cell type based on the significantly differentially expressed genes detected between the control samples and any of the five treatment time points. Fig. S37 Significantly enriched biological GO terms for each coho salmon cell type based on the significantly differentially expressed genes detected between the control samples and any of the five treatment time points. Fig. S38 Summary statistics for all Atlantic and coho salmon libraries. Fig. S39 Percent of UMIs identified as mtDNA features for a) Atlantic salmon and b) coho salmon samples, with the 10% maximum threshold used for subsequent filtering indicated by a horizontal black line. Fig. S40 UMI and feature counts per cell barcode and feature counts vs. UMI counts for each Atlantic salmon sample. Fig. S41 UMI and feature counts per cell barcode and feature counts vs. UMI counts for each coho salmon sample. Fig. S42 Cell clusters after initial integration of Atlantic salmon samples: a) UMAP, b) number of cells per cluster per sample, c) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, d) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster. Fig. S43 Cell clusters after initial integration of coho salmon samples: a) UMAP, b) number of cells per cluster per sample, c) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, d) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster. Fig. S44 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for cluster 0 after the initial integration of Atlantic salmon samples. Fig. S45 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for cluster 1 after the initial integration of coho salmon samples. Fig. S46 Cell clusters after removing one cluster (cluster 1 from Fig. S43) and re-integrating/clustering coho salmon samples: a) UMAP, b) number of cells per cluster per sample, c) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, d) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster. Fig. S47 Violin plots of expression levels for the top 20 significant marker genes for cluster 11 after removing one cluster (cluster 1 from Fig. S43) and re-integrating/clustering coho salmon samples. Fig. S48 Distribution of UMIs and features for Atlantic salmon (a, b) and coho salmon (c, d) samples. Fig. S49 Subclustering of cluster 12 within coho salmon. Feature plots indicate expression of ltk (a) and casq1b (b) in different cells within cluster 12. Reclustering those cells within cluster 12 using 3 PCs and a resolution of 0.02 revealed two clusters as visualized in a UMAP (c). One cluster expressed casq1b, the other expressed ltk as shown in a dot plot (d) and feature plots (e, f). Fig. S50 Distribution of UMIs and features for each cluster identified in Atlantic salmon (a, b) and coho salmon (c, d). Fig. S51 Cell clusters after initial integration of Atlantic and coho salmon samples: a) UMAP, b) number of cells per cluster per sample, c) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, d) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster. Fig. S52 Violin plots of expression levels for the 9 significant marker genes for cluster 0 of the dataset integrating both Atlantic salmon and coho salmon samples. Fig. S53 Cell clusters after removing one cluster (cluster 0 from Fig. S51) and re-integrating/clustering: a) UMAP, b) number of cells per cluster per sample, c) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, d) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster. Fig. S54 Violin plots of expression levels for the 7 significant marker genes for cluster 1 of the dataset integrating both Atlantic and coho samples (for UMAP see Fig. S53). Fig. S55 Cell clusters after removing one cluster (cluster 1 from Fig. S53) and re-integrating/clustering: a) violin plot of the distribution of feature counts per cluster, b) violin plot of the distribution of UMI counts per cluster, c) number of cells per cluster per sample. Tables S1–S9: Table S1 Summary statistics for STAR outputs for each Atlantic salmon sample. Table S2 Summary statistics for STAR outputs for each coho salmon sample. Table S3 Number of nuclei detected per sample after several filtering stages. Table S4 Number of cells per cell type in each Atlantic salmon sample. Table S5 Number of cells per cell type in each coho salmon sample. Table S6 Number of cells per

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,778
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,316

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,7780,177

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFigshare→Même sujetAquaculture disease management and microbiota→Travaux en français237 207→