Response of blue shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris (Perez-Farfante & Kensley, 1997) to dietary cadaverine supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on salmon and shrimp have shown that reduced feed intake and growth caused by the consumption of low-quality fish meals, manufactured from spoiled fish, were not due to the presence of biogenic amines. Moreover, an improvement in weight gain was seen in blue shrimp fed a diet supplemented with cadaverine plus histamine. It was not clear, however, if this effect was due to the consumption of histamine or cadaverine. The objective of the current experiment was to investigate the effect of dietary cadaverine supplementation on growth parameters and various amine concentrations in tissues of the blue shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris. Six experimental diets were supplemented with cadaverine at 0, 500, 1100, 2300, 3500 and 4600 mg kg−1 and tested in a feeding trial lasting 28 days. Feed consumption, feed conversion ratio, survival and weight gain were not affected by the concentration of dietary cadaverine. The dietary supplementation of cadaverine, however, resulted in a linear increase in cadaverine concentration in shrimp tissues, especially in the hepatopancreas. It was concluded that dietary cadaverine does not have any effect on growth and feed intake of shrimp. Growth promotion, as reported previously in shrimp fed a diet supplemented with histamine plus cadaverine, was probably due to histamine or a combined effect of histamine plus cadaverine but not due to dietary cadaverine alone. It seems that shrimp have a limited ability to metabolize cadaverine, which then accumulates intact in shrimp tissues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".