Ca<sup>2+</sup>handling and oxidative capacity are greatly impaired in swimming muscles of hatchery-reared versus wild Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The swimming capacity of fish is strongly associated with muscle performance, although the prerequisites for effective movements have not been fully described at the molecular level. To compare the condition of swimming musculature of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with that of wild fish, we analyzed the relative level of two excitation–contraction coupling components (i.e., dihydropyridine receptor (DHPR) and ryanodine receptor (RyR)) and the oxidative capacity of muscles with histochemical and Western blot methods. The density of DHPR and RyR was considerably higher in swimming muscles of wild fingerlings (age 0+) (109.8% and 123.3% in red muscle; 128.6% and 186.0% in white muscle, respectively) and yearlings (age 1+) (153.5% and 459.1% in red muscle; 131.2% and 858.4% in white muscle) as compared with those in reared fish. Similar difference was also observed in the oxidative capacity of muscles. Moreover, the oxidative activity correlated positively with the level of DHPR and RyR. Our data indicate that calcium handling, as well as oxidative capacity of swimming muscles of reared salmon, is clearly separable from the corresponding capacities of wild fish. We suggest that the observed alteration is a major contributing factor to the well-documented differences in swimming ability between wild and hatchery-reared salmon.
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) | 0.002 | 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".