MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040708602 · doi:10.1139/z05-161

Source of alarm substances in crayfish and their preliminary chemical characterization

2005· article· en· W2040708602 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrizia Acquistapace, Luca Calamai, Brian A. Hazlett, Francesca Gherardi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemolymphCrayfishBiologyProcambarus clarkiiALARMShellfishBiochemistryEcologyFisheryAquatic animalFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that hemolymph contains alarm substances in the crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852) and collected preliminary information on their chemical nature in this species. We analyzed crayfish responses in the presence of different test solutions in four experiments. The crayfish displayed an alerted behavior (i.e., feeding and locomotion were inhibited) in the presence of solutions containing different concentrations of hemolymph combined with food odor. However, hemolymph lost its bioactivity when tested 24 h after its extraction but maintained its ability to elicit alerted responses when diluted in a solution containing L-ascorbic acid. This may suggest that crayfish alarm molecules are degraded with time by oxidation. Microbial activity did not lead to the degradation of alarm substances, since hemolymph activity still declined after 24 h even if extracted and preserved in sterile conditions. Hemolymph molecules less than 5 kDa fractionated from hemolymph showed a strong bioactivity and were still bioactive after 24 h at 20 °C. As the 5 kDa fractioning eliminates all enzymes, we hypothesize that alarm substances are degraded through enzymatic reactions. Finally, we propose that alarm substances are peptides involved in the hemolymph clotting process.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207