Subcellular Distribution of Cadmium in Two Aquatic Invertebrates: Change Over Time and Relationship to Cd Assimilation and Loss by a Predatory Insect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to determine if the efficiency of cadmium (Cd) assimilation and loss by a freshwater predator (the alderfly Sialis velata) differs when it is exposed, for various lengths of time, to Cd in either an insect (Chironomus riparius) or a worm (Tubifex tubifex). Prey were exposed to Cd in sediments for up to 28 days and then fractionated to measure Cd distributions in their cells. Cadmium subcellular distributions varied little over time for a given preytype but differed substantially between the two prey species; for example, the cytosol comprised a larger proportion of Cd in the insect (76%) than in the worm (34%). The predator assimilated proportionally more Cd from the insect (72%) than from the worm (46%) and these assimilation efficiencies were similar to the proportion of prey Cd that would theoretically be available to it (cytosolic Cd + organelle Cd). However, measurements of Cd in the predator's feces confirmed that to obtain an exact 1:1 relationship between predator assimilation efficiency and prey subcellular distribution we had to assume that approximately 50% of the Cd associated with the organelle fraction of T. tubifex was unavailable for digestion by the predator. Losses of Cd from the predator also varied depending on the type of prey that were the source of its Cd.
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".