The Onset Temperature of the Heat-Shock Response and Whole-Organism Thermal Tolerance Are Tightly Correlated in both Laboratory-Acclimated and Field-Acclimatized Tidepool Sculpins (<i>Oligocottus maculosus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the relationship between thermal tolerance, measured as critical thermal maximum (CT(max)), and aspects of the heat-shock response in tidepool sculpins (Oligocottus maculosus) acclimated to constant laboratory temperatures or acclimatized to field conditions. The CT(max) of fish laboratory acclimated to 6°, 13°, and 20°C were 27.6° ± 0.1°C, 29.5° ± 0.1°C, and 30.8° ± 0.1°C, respectively, increasing linearly by 0.2°C for each 1°C increase in acclimation temperature. The CT(max) of field-acclimatized fish from the low intertidal (29.9° ± 0.1°C) was significantly lower than that of fish from the mid- (30.5° ± 0.1°C) and high (30.4° ± 0.1°C) intertidal. CT(max) and the onset temperature of hsp70 induction in gill (T(on)) were highly correlated in both laboratory-acclimated and field-acclimatized sculpins, with T(on) occurring at 2°C below CT(max) in all cases. However, there was no consistent relationship between CT(max) and the maximum levels of gill hsp70 mRNA. Predicted "acclimation" temperature (15.9° ± 0.3°C) and mean habitat temperature (15.9° ± 1.6°C) were similar for sculpins from low intertidal pools, but this relationship was not apparent in mid- and high intertidal fish. Mark-recapture experiments indicated that approximately 80% of fish from low intertidal pools were residents of that pool, but residency rates were less than 50% in mid- and high intertidal pools, which may explain the lack of correlation between CT(max) and habitat variables in these groups. These data indicate that gill hsp70 T(on) and CT(max) are highly correlated indicators of the thermal performance of tidepool sculpins in both laboratory and field settings.
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".