Expression of olfactory receptors in different life stages and life histories of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been hypothesized that salmonids use olfactory cues to return to their natal rivers and streams. However, the key components of the molecular pathway involved in imprinting and homing are still unknown. If odorants are involved in salmon homing migration, then olfactory receptors should play a critical role in the dissipation of information from the environment to the fish. Therefore, we examined the expression profiles of a suite of genes encoding olfactory receptors and other olfactory-related genes in the olfactory rosettes of different life stages in two anadromous and one non-anadromous wild Atlantic salmon populations from Newfoundland, Canada. We identified seven differentially expressed OlfC genes in juvenile anadromous salmon compared to returning adults in both populations of anadromous Atlantic salmon. The salmon from the Campbellton River had an additional 10 genes that were differentially expressed in juveniles compared to returning adults. There was no statistically significant difference in gene expression of any of the genes in the non-anadromous population (P < 0.01). The function of the OlfC gene products is not clear, but they are predicted to be amino acid receptors. Other studies have suggested that salmon use amino acids for imprinting and homing. This study, the first to examine the expression of olfactory-related genes in wild North American Atlantic salmon, has identified seven OlfC genes that may be involved in the imprinting and homeward migration of anadromous Atlantic salmon.
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 | 0.000 | 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".