MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073110084 · doi:10.1007/s12192-009-0100-6

Increased light intensity induces heat shock protein Hsp60 in coral species

2009· article· en· W2073110084 on OpenAlexafffund
Ari M. Chow, Christine Ferrier‐Pagès, Sam Khalouei, Stéphanie Reynaud, Ian R. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Stress and Chaperones · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHeat shock proteins research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre Scientifique de Monaco
KeywordsCoralLight intensityCoral bleachingThermal shockHeat shock proteinLaminar flowBiologyChemistryEcologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryPhysicsThermodynamicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of increased light intensity and heat stress on heat shock protein Hsp60 was examined in two coral species using a branched coral and a laminar coral, selected for their different resistance to environmental perturbation. Transient Hsp60 induction was observed in the laminar coral following either light or thermal stress. Sustained induction was observed when these stresses were combined. The branched coral exhibited comparatively weak transient Hsp60 induction after heat stress and no detectable induction following light stress, consistent with its susceptibility to bleaching in native environments compared to the laminar coral. Our observations also demonstrate that increased light intensity and heat stress exhibited a greater negative impact on the photosynthetic capacity of environmentally sensitive branched coral than the more resistant laminar coral. This supports a correlation between stress induction of Hsp60 and (a) ability to counter perturbation of photosynthetic capacity by light and heat stress and (b) resistance to environmentally induced coral bleaching.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Stress and ChaperonesSame topicHeat shock proteins researchFrench-language works237,207