Gustatory responses to feeding‐ and non‐feeding‐stimulant chemicals, with an emphasis on amino acids, in rainbow trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specific receptor and fibre types of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss involved in the detection and discrimination of amino acids and a heterogeneous collection of compounds were investigated by recording the electrical activity of the maxillary branch of the facial nerve innervating taste buds inside the upper jaw. Proline (Pro), alanine (Ala), leucine (Leu), betaine (Bet) and 2‐amino‐3‐guanidinopropionic acid (Agp) were the major amino acids detected by the gustatory system. The two experimental approaches, concentration‐response curves and cross‐adaptations, showed that all amino acids were detected by three independent receptor types: Pro ‐, Agp/Bet ‐ and Leu ‐receptors. Bile acids, the most potent stimulants recorded, were detected by a single receptor type independent of those for amino acids, with threshold concentrations of 10 −12 M. Strychnine, quinine and tetrodotoxin may have partially shared a single receptor mechanism. The gustatory sensibility narrowly tuned towards the amino acid spectrum compared to those for a diverse array of non‐feeding stimulant chemicals, combined with feeding behaviour triggered primarily by vision and olfaction, suggest that in rainbow trout, and possibly other salmonid species, gustatory chemical cues, in addition to food finding and intake, play an important role in detecting poisonous prey and substances.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".