Commercial naphthenic acids and the organic fraction of oil sands process water induce different effects on pro‐inflammatory gene expression and macrophage phagocytosis in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naphthenic acids (NAs) are believed to be the major toxic component of oil sands process water (OSPW). Different OSPW preparations have distinct NA compositions, and additional organics, that differ from the commercial NAs (C-NAs) often used for toxicology studies. To evaluate whether C-NAs are an adequate model to study OSPW toxicity in complex organisms, we compared the effects of C-NAs and the extractable organic fraction of OSPW (OSPW-OF) on mice immune mechanisms. Mice were orally exposed to different C-NA doses, or OSPW-OF at the same NA dose, for up to 8 weeks, and the expression of pro-inflammatory genes in different organs was determined using quantitative PCR. C-NAs and OSPW-OF altered the expression of pro-inflammatory genes, inducing either expression down-regulation or up-regulation, depending on the organ examined and time after exposure. The time at which gene expression alterations occurred, and the specific sets of genes whose expression was altered, were very different between animals exposed to C-NAs or to OSPW-OF. We evaluated the ability of mouse peritoneal macrophages to phagocytose yeast cell wall, as a measure of the ability of mice to mount a central function of the innate immune response. Phagocytosis was significantly reduced in animals exposed to C-NAs, but enhanced in mice exposed to OSPW-OF. Our results indicate that studies using C-NAs may not necessarily reflect the possible effects induced in animals by process water from tailing ponds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".