Gene Expression Profiles in Rainbow Trout, Onchorynchus mykiss, Exposed to a Simple Chemical Mixture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among proposed uses for microarrays in environmental toxiciology is the identification of key contributors to toxicity within a mixture. However, it remains uncertain whether the transcriptomic profiles resulting from exposure to a mixture have patterns of altered gene expression that contain identifiable contributions from each toxicant component. We exposed isogenic rainbow trout Onchorynchus mykiss, to sublethal levels of ethynylestradiol, 2,2,4,4-tetrabromodiphenyl ether, and chromium VI or to a mixture of all three toxicants Fluorescently labeled complementary DNA (cDNA) were generated and hybridized against a commercially available Salmonid array spotted with 16,000 cDNAs. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (p<0.05) with a Benjamani-Hochberg multiple test correction (Genespring [Agilent] software package) to identify up and downregulated genes. Gene clustering patterns that can be used as "expression signatures" were determined using hierarchical cluster analysis. The gene ontology terms associated with significantly altered genes were also used to identify functional groups that were associated with toxicant exposure. Cross-ontological analytics approach was used to assign functional annotations to genes with "unknown" function. Our analysis indicates that transcriptomic profiles resulting from the mixture exposure resemble those of the individual contaminant exposures, but are not a simple additive list. However, patterns of altered genes representative of each component of the mixture are clearly discernible, and the functional classes of genes altered represent the individual components of the mixture. These findings indicate that the use of microarrays to identify transcriptomic profiles may aid in the identification of key stressors within a chemical mixture, ultimately improving environmental assessment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".