The effects of pathogens, parasites, and familiarity on alarm cell investment in fathead minnows, pimephales promelas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fishes in the Superorder Ostariophysi have specialized epidermal club cells that contain an alarm substance.Damage to these cells causes the release of the alarm substance which can serve as a useful indicator of predation risk for nearby conspecifics.The majority of research involving alarm substances has investigated the roles that cues play in anti-predator contexts including learned predator avoidance.In this study I tested the effects of non-predatory stressors including pathogens, pathogen conditioned water, social dynamics, and skin-burrowing parasites on epidermal variables including alarm cell investment.In experiment 1, fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, were exposed to different levels of the pathogenic water-mold, Saprolgenia ferax to determine the effect it would have on the epidermis.Minnows exposed to Saprolgenia had significantly more alarm cells than those exposed to the control solutions.The treatments had no effect on body condition, alarm cell size, mucous cell density, mucous cell size, or epidermal thickness.In experiment 2, social dynamics were manipulated by pairing minnows with either a familiar partner or an unfamiliar individual and exposing them to Saprolgenia ferax.The treatments had no effect on body condition, alarm cell density, alarm cell size, mucous cell density, mucous cell size, or epidermal thickness.In experiment 3, minnows were exposed to either Saprolgenia or Saprolgenia conditioned water to determine whether the physical presence of zoospores was required to induce a change in epidermal properties.The treatments had no effect on body condition, alarm cell density, alarm cell size, mucous cell density, mucous cell size, or epidermal thickness; suggesting that water conditioned by Saprolgenia may be sufficient to induce a change in alarm cell investment.In experiment 4, minnows were exposed to three
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".