Comparison of Chloroform–Methanol-Extracted and Solvent-Free Triglyceride Determinations in Four Fish Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lipids, including triglycerides, are important variables in fish bioenergetics and can be used to estimate overall fish condition. Triglycerides are the major energy storage form in fish and therefore are a more ecologically and physiologically relevant measure of bioenergetics than total lipids. Chloroform-methanol-extracted total body lipids (Bligh and Dyer) and total body triglycerides determined in chloroform-methanol extracts and unextracted whole-body fractions were measured in four fish species: northern pike Esox lucius, burbot Lota lota, slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus, and spottail shiners Notropis hudsonius. Determinations of total body lipids were consistently greater than those of total body triglycerides when measured in the same solvent-extracted fraction, although both measures followed similar trends. In an effort to eliminate the need for extraction with organic solvents, we compared the performance of an enzyme-based triglyceride assay in both the solvent-extracted fraction and a whole-body unextracted homogenate for each fish. The chloroform-methanol-extracted triglyceride values were consistently lower than triglycerides measured in the unextracted whole-body homogenate. In addition, comparison of triglyceride measurements revealed limitations to the solvent extraction and subsequent triglyceride determinations in lean fish. Thus, in addition to being simple, rapid, and not requiring organic solvents, determination of triglycerides in an unextracted whole-fish homogenate may be a useful alternative to chloroform-methanol-based methods of lipid extraction and subsequent triglyceride measurement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".