MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000210779 · doi:10.1080/10934529.2012.680393

Effect of copper and cadmium ions on heart function and calpain activity in blue mussel<i>Mytilus edulis</i>

2012· article· en· W2000210779 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Igor Bakhmet, Н. П. Канцерова, Л. А. Лысенко, Н. Н. Немова

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsMytilusBlue musselCadmiumMusselCopperChemistryEnvironmental chemistryZoologyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heart rate and calpain activity of blue mussels Mytilus edulis from the sublittoral zone, exposed to different levels of water-borne copper and cadmium, was investigated in a long-term experiment. The content of cadmium and copper in the blue mussel was determined using flame and graphite Atomic absorption spectroscopy. The observed concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 89.1 μg/g dry weight for cadmium and from 6.1 to 51.0 μg/g dry weight for copper in the control and highest concentration, respectively. Initially, increase in cardiac activity in response to copper and Cadmium exposure was observed under all pollutant concentrations (5-250 and 10-500 μg/L, respectively). The calpain-like activity in gills and hepatopancreas of the mussels treated with metals changed in dose- and time-dependent manner: from a sharp rise at the 250 μg/L concentration of copper on the first day to a significant decrease under the effect of Cadmium in the concentration of 500 μg/L on the third day of the experiment. These results suggest that: (i) heart rate oscillation may reflect active adaptation of blue mussels to contamination and (ii) animals have different sensitivity to copper and Cadmium according to the role of the metals in the mussels' life activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part ASame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207