MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Major histocompatibility complex and kin discrimination in Atlantic salmon and brook trout

2006· article· en· W2127304400 on OpenAlexaff
Rupika S. Rajakaruna, Jennifer Brown, Karia H. Kaukinen, Kristina M. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySalvelinusKin recognitionSalmoAlleleGeneticsMajor histocompatibility complexHaplotypeKin selectionTroutEvolutionary biologyGeneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many species of salmonids can discriminate kin from unrelated conspecifics using olfactory cues. In this study, we determined the role of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in kin discrimination by juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Genetic variation at the highly polymorphic exon coding for peptide-binding region of an MHC class II gene was studied using polymerase chain reaction and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. Experiments compared discrimination ability based on MHC haplotypes both within and among kin and non-kin groups. Juveniles chose kin sharing both alleles over kin sharing no alleles. Juveniles also preferred non-kin sharing both alleles to non-kin sharing no alleles. These data suggest that the MHC class II gene influence kin discrimination in juvenile Atlantic salmon and brook trout. The influence of additional genes was also apparent in trials where juveniles were able to recognize kin sharing no alleles over non-kin sharing no alleles. However, the inability of juveniles to discriminate between kin sharing no alleles and non-kin sharing either one or both alleles indicates that MHC is as potent as the rest of the genome in producing distinguishable odours.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207