MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1779215488 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2014-0157

Androgen effects on immune gene expression during parental care in bluegill sunfish (<i>Lepomis macrochirus</i>)

2014· article· en· W1779215488 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Charlyn Partridge, Chandra M.C. Rodgers, Rosemary Knapp, Bryan D. Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyFlutamideAndrogen receptorAndrogenImmune systemInternal medicineEndocrinologyLepomisGene expressionLepomis macrochirusGeneZoologyProstate cancerHormoneEcologyGeneticsCancerFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reproductive efforts are energetically costly and often result in significant trade-offs with other metabolic processes. In many animals, androgens influence how this energy is allocated during the breeding period. In this study, androgen levels of parental bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819) were manipulated by implanting males with either 11-ketotestosterone (11-KT) or flutamide (an androgen receptor antagonist) shortly after spawning. Parental behaviours were assessed for 3 days after implantation. Differential brain gene expression between the two groups was examined using a 44 000 microarray gene chip. We found that 11-KT-implanted males exhibited lower levels of expression of genes related to immune function compared with flutamide-implanted males, suggesting that high androgen levels negatively affect the male immune system. These data thus indicate that a significant trade-off may exist between maintaining high levels of androgens and decreased immune function in parental male bluegill.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→