MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113075361 · doi:10.1242/jeb.205.8.1179

Copper uptake across rainbow trout gills

2002· article· en· W2113075361 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Grosell, Chris M. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutGillZoologyFisheryBiologyCopperTroutRainbowFish <Actinopterygii>ChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several components of branchial copper uptake were identified in juvenile freshwater rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) using (64)Cu. On the basis of competitive interactions between sodium and copper uptake, inhibition of copper uptake by a proton pump inhibitor (bafilomycin A1, 2 micromol l(-1)) and a Na(+) channel blocker (phenamil, 100 micromol l(-1)), it appears that a proportion of the branchial copper uptake occurs via an apical Na(+) channel. This sodium-sensitive copper uptake demonstrates saturation kinetics, with a K(m) of 7.1 nmol l(-1) and a J(max) of 21.2 pmol g(-1) h(-1), and is characterized by an IC(50) of 104 micromol l(-1) sodium. On the basis of residual copper uptake in the presence of high sodium concentrations (20 mmol l(-1)) and differential inhibition of sodium and copper uptake by phenamil (100 micromol l(-1)), a sodium-insensitive component of copper uptake is also present in trout gills. It demonstrates saturation kinetics with a comparably low K(m) (9.6 nmol l(-1)) but a lower maximum transport capacity (J(max)=3.5 pmol g(-1) h(-1)) than the sodium-insensitive system. Sodium uptake exhibits saturation kinetics with a K(m) of 69 micromol l(-1). Copper reduced branchial sodium transport affinity but increased the maximal sodium transport capacity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations316
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207