MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098030603 · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00342.2001

Isolation and characterization of mitochondria-rich cell types from the gill of freshwater rainbow trout

2002· article· en· W2098030603 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Gálvez, Scott D. Reid, Guy Hawkings, Greg G. Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutPeanut agglutininPercollMolecular biologyChemistryBlotLectinBiologyBiochemistryIn vitroFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A magnetic cell separation technique (MACS) was developed for isolating and characterizing peanut lectin agglutinin positive (PNA(+)) cells from rainbow trout gills. Percoll density separated mitochondria-rich (MR) cells were serially labeled with PNA-FITC and an anti-FITC antibody covalently coupled to a 50-nm iron particle and then applied to a magnetic column. PNA(+) MR cells were enriched to >95% purity. Transmission electron microscopy analysis of both the PNA(+) and PNA negative (PNA(-)) fraction showed that PNA binds to MR chloride cells while the PNA(-) cell fraction is comprised of MR cells with features characteristic of pavement cells. Western blotting demonstrated that both PNA(+) and PNA(-) fractions had high levels of Na(+)-K(+)-ATPase and Sco1 expression; however, relative expression of H(+)-ATPase in PNA(+) and PNA(-) cells demonstrated that untreated fish had twofold higher H(+)-ATPase levels in PNA(-) cells relative to the PNA(+) cells. Furthermore, hypercapnic acidosis significantly increased the relative H(+)-ATPase expression on PNA(-) cells only, whereas metabolic alkalosis had no significant effect.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations122
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207