Differential rejection of salmon lice by pink and chum salmon: disease consequences and expression of proinflammatory genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consequences of high (735 copepodids fish-1) and low (243 copepodids fish-1) level exposures of size-matched juvenile pink and chum salmon to Lepeophtheirus salmonis copepodids were examined. At both levels of exposure the prevalence and abundance of L. salmonis was significantly higher on chum salmon. In addition, the weight of exposed chum salmon following the high exposure was significantly less than that of unexposed chum salmon. At both exposures, the haematocrit of exposed chum salmon was significantly less than that of unexposed chum. Neither weight nor haematocrit of pink salmon was affected by exposures at these levels. Despite the presence of microscopic inflammatory lesions associated with attachment of L. salmonis on the epithelium of gill and fin of both salmon species, there were no mortalities following either exposure. A transient cortisol response was observed in chum salmon 21 d after low exposure. An earlier and quantitatively higher expression of the proinflammatory genes interleukin-8 (IL-8), tumour necrosis factor alpha-1 (TNFalpha-1) and interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta) in fin and head kidney of pink salmon suggested a mechanism of more rapid louse rejection in this species. Together, these observations indicate a relatively enhanced innate resistance to L. salmonis in the juvenile pink salmon compared with the juvenile chum 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) | 0.001 | 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".