Differences in transcription levels among wild, domesticated, and hybrid Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>) from two environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escaped domesticated individuals can introduce disadvantageous traits into wild populations due to both adaptive differences between population ancestors and human-induced changes during domestication. In contrast to their domesticated counterparts, some endangered wild Atlantic salmon populations encounter during their marine stage large amounts of suspended sediments, which may act as a selective agent. We used microarrays to elucidate quantitative transcriptional differences between a domesticated salmon strain, a wild population and their first-generation hybrids during their marine life stage, to describe transcriptional responses to natural suspended sediments, and to test for adaptive genetic variation in plasticity relating to a history of natural exposure or nonexposure to suspended sediments. We identified 67 genes differing in transcription level among salmon groups. Among these genes, processes related to energy metabolism and ion homoeostasis were over-represented, while genes contributing to immunity and actin-/myosin-related processes were also involved in strain differentiation. Domestic-wild hybrids exhibited intermediate transcription patterns relative to their parents for two-thirds of all genes that differed between their parents; however, genes deviating from additivity tended to have similar levels to those expressed by the wild parent. Sediments induced increases in transcription levels of eight genes, some of which are known to contribute to external or intracellular damage mitigation. Although genetic variation in plasticity did not differ significantly between groups after correcting for multiple comparisons, two genes (metallothionein and glutathione reductase) tended to be more plastic in response to suspended sediments in wild and hybrid salmon, and merit further examination as candidate genes under natural selection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".