Lipovitellins derived from two forms of vitellogenin are differentially processed during oocyte maturation in haddock (<i>Melanogrammus aeglefinus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the process of cloning vitellogenin (Vtg) cDNAs from haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), two related, but distinct, mRNAs were identified. Full-length cDNA sequences were determined for both Vtg types (Had1 and Had2), and the deduced amino acid sequences were found to be 54% identical to each other and 48-58% identical to other teleost Vtgs. To investigate the expression of the two Vtg mRNAs, proteins from prehydrated oocytes and fertilized eggs were separated on SDS-polyacrylamide gels. Only a single lipovitellin I band was detected in each sample, and the egg lipovitellin I was smaller (97 vs. 110 kDa) than the oocyte protein, indicative of proteolytic processing during oocyte hydration. Mass spectrometric (MALDI-TOFMS and tandem mass spectrometry) analyses of tryptic fragments from the haddock oocyte and egg lipovitellin I revealed that the lipovitellin I from prehydrated oocytes contained tryptic fragments that matched the sequences of both types of Vtg, suggesting that there were two proteins in this band, while the egg lipovitellin I contained tryptic fragments that only matched the Had1 cDNA sequence, indicating that the Had2 lipovitellin had been degraded during hydration. Physiological data from haddock oocytes and eggs demonstrate that, as in other marine fish that spawn pelagic eggs, the free amino acid content increases during oocyte hydration and apparently contributes to hydration by driving the osmotic uptake of water. The correlation of the disappearance of one lipovitellin I with the increase of free amino acids in the oocyte suggests that this protein is a major source of the free amino acids for oocyte hydration.
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) | 0.000 | 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".