Behavioural and electrophysiological responses to F‐prostaglandins, putative spawning pheromones, in three salmonid fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural and electro‐olfactogram (EOG) responses to synthetic F‐prostaglandins (PGFs) were recorded in the three salmonids: brown trout Salmo trutta, lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis and rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Exposure to 10−8 M PGF2α and 13, 14‐dihydro‐PGF2α increased swimming activity in individually exposed brown trout in a flow‐through tank. Digging and nest probing behaviours were further observed in brown trout females exposed to PGF2α. Lake whitefish exposed to 10−8 M PGF2α and 15‐keto‐PGF2α also increased their locomotion. In rainbow trout, the absence of behavioural responses to PGFs correlates with a lack of olfactory sensitivity to these chemicals. PGFs triggered behavioural responses distinct from the feeding stimulant in brown trout. EOG measurements demonstrated that brown trout were most sensitive to PGF2α, with a threshold concentration of 10−11 M. Lake whitefish were most sensitive to both 15‐keto‐PGF2α and 13, 14‐dihydro‐PGF2α. Cross‐adaptation and binary mixture experiments suggest that only one olfactory receptive mechanism is involved in PGFs detection. The behavioural and olfactory responses observed with exposure to PGF2α and its metabolites suggest these compounds function as reproductive pheromones in brown trout and lake whitefish.
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".