MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972726872 · doi:10.4319/lo.2007.52.1.0476

Is ω6 docosapentaenoic acid an essential fatty acid during early ontogeny in marine fauna?

2007· article· en· W1972726872 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher C. Parrish, Michael J. Whiticar, Velmurugu Puvanendran

Bibliographic record

VenueLimnology and Oceanography · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGadusRotiferBiologyProtistFatty acidDocosapentaenoic acidZoologyOntogenyBrachionusLarvaFood scienceEcologyPolyunsaturated fatty acidFisheryBiochemistryEicosapentaenoic acidFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A thraustochytrid marine protist (Schizochytrium sp.) was fed to rotifers (Branchionus plicatilis), which in turn, were fed to cod larvae (Gadus morhua). Samples of larvae 1 and 11 d after hatch, the rotifer diet, and the enrichment were collected for molecular and isotope analyses of fatty acids. Schizochytrium sp. had unusually high proportions of ω6DPA (8.6% α 0.6%), which was reflected in the rotifers fed this protist (8.7% α 0.2%). This fatty acid was also unusually 13C‐enriched in both the protists (211.63% α 0.11%) and the rotifers (‐11.83% α 0.39%). The proportions of ω6DPA were very low in prefeeding cod larvae but they increased 30‐fold by d 11; however, ω6DPA showed the smallest δ13C change from the protist source. This, combined with reports of significantly higher growth rates in cod and scallops fed diets rich in this fatty acid, provide strong evidence for ω6DPA being essential at least in the early life stages of these two very different groups.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLimnology and OceanographySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207