Temporal patterns of tissue glycogen, glucose, and glycogen phosphorylase activity prior to hibernation in freeze-tolerant chorus frogs, Pseudacris triseriata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freezing survival may differ among winters in chorus frogs ( Pseudacris triseriata (Wied-Neuwied, 1838)), and low freezing survival is associated with low hepatic glycogen stores. The pattern of prehibernation liver glycogen accumulation in chorus frogs is unknown. Frogs might accumulate hepatic glycogen stores until a threshold level sufficient for winter survival is attained, after which frogs enter hibernation (critical threshold hypothesis). According to this model, frogs active late in the season should only be those with low hepatic glycogen stores. Alternatively, hepatic glycogen levels might continue to increase throughout the fall as long as frogs remain active (continuous increase hypothesis). We tested these hypotheses by measuring liver and leg muscle glycogen, glucose, and glycogen phosphorylase activities in chorus frogs throughout the fall prehibernation period in southeastern South Dakota. Hepatic glycogen levels were significantly related to date and increased throughout the fall period, consistent with the continuous increase hypothesis. This suggests that hepatic glycogen levels do not serve as a cue for entrance into hibernation. Liver phosphorylase activity did not vary significantly with progression of the fall season and activity was lower than in winter, suggesting that the winter increment of phosphorylase activity requires some stimulus during hibernation (e.g., low temperatures).
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 | 0.001 | 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".