Do fathead minnows, <i>Pimephales promelas</i> Rafinesque, alter their club cell investment in responses to variable risk of infection from <i>Saprolegnia</i>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish in the Superorder Ostariophysi possess large epidermal club cells that release chemical cues warning nearby conspecifics of danger. Despite the long-held assumption that such club cells evolved under the selective force of predation, recent studies demonstrated that predation has no effect on club cell investment. Rather, club cells have an immune function and cell production may be stimulated by skin-penetrating pathogens and parasites. The current work investigates whether fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, alter their club cell characteristics based on variation in infection risk. In a 2 × 3 design, we exposed minnows to infective cysts of two oomycete species (Saprolegnia ferax and S. parasitica) at three different concentrations (2, 20 or 200 cysts L(-1)). Club cell characteristics (number and size) were quantified 12 days after exposure. Saprolegnia parasitica is thought to be more pathogenic than S. ferax, hence we predicted greater club cell investment and a larger turnover rate of cells by minnows exposed to S. parasitica than S. ferax. We also predicted that minnows exposed to higher numbers of cysts should invest more in club cells and have a higher turnover rate of cells. We found no difference in club cell density or size between fish exposed to the two Saprolegnia species; however, fish exposed to high concentrations of pathogens had smaller club cells than those exposed to low concentrations, indicating a higher rate of turnover of cells in the epidermis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".