Sulphide detoxification in the bivalve,<i>Arctica Islandica</i>(L.) from two different habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic end products of sulphide detoxification were studied in Arctica islándicafrom Laholm Bay and from Kockholmen, Sweden. In summer, Laholm Bay becomes hypoxic with significant concentrations of sulphide in the bottom water whereas Kockholmen shows little sign of hypoxia or of sulphide accumulation. There were considerable differences in the concentrations of some of the thiol compounds in the haemo-lymph and in the tissues of A. islandicafrom the two sites but, because of the large variation between individuals, most of these differences were not significant. Exposure of A. islandicato sulphide in the laboratory resulted in significant increases in the concentrations of sulphide and thiosulphate in the tissues of animals from both sites. The concentrations of glutathione in the tissues of freshly collected A. islandicafrom Kockholmen were much lower than in those from Laholm Bay, but increased significantly following exposure to sulphide to reach concentrations similar to those found in the Laholm Bay animals. In contrast, the concentrations of L-cysteine in the haemolymph and the heart tissue of the A. islandicafrom Kockholmen were significantly higher than those found in the A. islandicafrom Laholm Bay. The concentration of L-cysteine in the haemolymph of the A. islandicafrom Kockholmen increased significantly during exposure to sulphide. Possible mechanisms of sulphide detoxification in this species are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".