Evaluating the Effect of Stressors on Thiaminase Activity in Alewife
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No consistent explanation has been found for the variability in the thiaminase activity of alewives Alosa pseudoharengus despite the role of alewife thiaminase in large-scale salmonine mortality in the Laurentian Great Lakes. We conducted experiments to evaluate the effect of two stressors, reduced salt content in the water and food limitation, on alewife thiaminase activity. Alewives were subjected to treatments in replicated tanks in which conductivity was lowered (< 100 microS/cm) for 8 d and feeding was limited for 39 d. Circulating white blood cells, plasma cortisol, plasma glucose, and whole-body thiaminase were measured in individual alewives to assess their response to these experimental treatments. Alewives from the controls had significantly larger numbers of circulating white blood cells than those in the salt-reduced and food-limited treatments (24,000 and 19,000 cells/microL and 11,000 and 9,000 cells/microL for alewives from the two control and salt-reduced treatment tanks, respectively, and 34,000 and 30,000 cells/microL and 21,000 and 16,000 cells/microL for alewives from the two control and food-limited treatment tanks). No significant differences in alewife thiaminase activity were found between treatment fish and their controls. The mean thiaminase activity in the alewives studied increased from 6,900 to 16,000 pmol x g(-1) x min(-1) from the time of their collection in Cayuga Lake to the start of laboratory experiments 1.5-2.5 years later; the latter value was more than twice that of previously reported levels of thiaminase activity from alewives collected in the wild. These data suggest that the variability in alewife thiaminase is not related to stress from salt reduction or food limitation, but laboratory holding conditions significantly increased thiaminase through a mechanism not evaluated by our experimental treatments.
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".