MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

White muscle 20S proteasome activity is negatively correlated to growth rate at low temperature in the spotted wolffish <i>Anarhichas minor</i>

2010· article· en· W2019787905 on OpenAlexaff
Simon G. Lamarre, Pierre Blier, William R. Driedzic, Nathalie R. Le François

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAcclimatizationProteasomeBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of temperature and mass on specific growth rate (G) was examined in spotted wolffish Anarhichas minor of different size classes (ranging from 60 to 1500 g) acclimated at different temperatures (4, 8 and 12 degrees C). The relationship between G and 20S proteasome activity in heart ventricle, liver and white muscle tissue was then assessed in fish acclimated at 4 and 12 degrees C to determine if protein degradation via the proteasome pathway could be imposing a limitation on somatic growth. Cardiac 20S proteasome activity was not affected by acclimation temperature nor fish mass and had no correlation with G. Hepatic 20S proteasome activity was higher at 12 degrees C but did not show any relationship with G. Partial correlation analysis showed that white muscle 20S proteasome activity was negatively correlated to G (partial Pearson's r = -0.609) but only at cold acclimation temperature (4 degrees C). It is suggested that acclimation to cold temperature involves compensation of the mitochondrial oxidative capacity which would in turn lead to increased production of oxidatively damaged proteins that are degraded by the proteasome pathway and ultimately negatively affects G at cold temperature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207