The effects of cortisol administration on social status and brain monoaminergic activity in rainbow trout<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that circulating cortisol levels influence the outcome of social interactions in rainbow trout was tested. Juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss were given a single intraperitoneal (i.p.) implant containing either cortisol (110 mg kg(-1) fish), or cortisol plus the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU486 (mifepristone; 1100 mg kg(-1) fish), and sampled after 5 days of social interactions with either a similar sized (<1.5% difference in fork length) or smaller conspecific (>5% difference). Within size-matched pairs of fish, cortisol treatment significantly increased the probability that the treated fish within each pair became subordinate, an effect that was abolished by simultaneous administration of RU486. Cortisol treatment also reduced the usual success of the larger fish within a pair to preferentially become dominant from 86% to 40% of pairs. To investigate one potential mechanism underlying the apparent effect of cortisol in predisposing trout to low social status, fish were treated with cortisol or cortisol+RU486 for 5 days, after which brain monoamines [5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT); dopamine (DA)] and their major metabolites [5-hydroxyindolacetic acid (5-HIAA); 3,4-dihydroxy-phenylacetic acid (DOPAC)] were measured. Significant increases of serotonergic activity ([5-HIAA]/[5-HT] ratio) were detected in the telencephalon with cortisol treatment, an effect that was eliminated by simultaneous administration of RU486. Also, cortisol treatment significantly decreased dopaminergic activity in the telencephalon. Somewhat surprisingly, the effects of cortisol treatment on monoaminergic activity in the hypothalamus were opposite to those in the telencephalon. Moreover, in no case did administration of RU486 abolish these effects. These results suggest that the effects of cortisol on social status in rainbow trout may be mediated via the modulation of central signaling systems and subsequent changes in behaviour and/or competitive ability, although the exact site of action in the brain remains uncertain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".