Wild Atlantic salmon <i>Salmo salar </i>L. strains have greater growth potential than a domesticated strain selected for fast growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was undertaken to examine the responses of three Atlantic salmon Salmo salar strains to growth hormone (GH) treatment. A positive growth response to sustained‐release GH implants was found in two wild strains (Namsen and Imsa) as well as one domesticated strain (AquaGen). The data revealed that the growth‐selected AquaGen strain has further growth potential, however, a stronger growth response was observed in the wild strains which outgrew the domesticated strain after GH treatment. These observations suggest that some growth potential may have been lost during the selection for rapid growth in the AquaGen strain. In September, the parr were GH implanted and in December sampled for plasma GH and insulin‐like growth factor I (IGF‐I) levels, liver, muscle and gill GH receptor, IGF‐I mRNA levels, gill Na+,K+‐ATPase activity, muscle and liver lipid content and body silvering. Low temperature and seasonal growth cessation probably explains the relatively limited GH effects found. Body silvering in all strains was positively correlated to size. GH increased IGF‐I plasma levels in the Namsen strain inspite of liver IGF‐I mRNA levels being lower in GH‐treated fish.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".