Effects of chronic Cd exposure via the diet or water on internal organ-specific distribution and subsequent gill Cd uptake kinetics in juvenile rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New regulatory approaches to metal toxicity (e.g., biotic ligand model [BLM]) focus on gill metal binding and tissue-specific accumulation of waterborne metals; the dietary route of exposure and dietary/waterborne interactions are not considered, nor are the consequences of chronic exposure by either route. Therefore, we studied the effect of the same gill Cd load (approximately 2.5 microg/g), achieved by a chronic, 30-d exposure to Cd either via the diet (1,500 mg/kg) or the water (2 microg/L), on tissue-specific Cd distribution and subsequent uptake of waterborne Cd in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). These two exposure regimes resulted in a branchial Cd load that had been taken up across either apical gill membranes (waterborne Cd) or basolateral gill membranes (through the bloodstream for dietary Cd). The BLM characteristics of the gills (i.e., short-term Cd uptake kinetics) were altered: affinity (log K(Cd Gill) [95% confidence level]) decreased from 7.05 (6.75-8.76) for control to 6.54 (6.32-7.03) for waterborne Cd and 5.92 (5.83-6.51) for dietary Cd, whereas binding capacity (Bmax) increased from 3.12 (2.14-4.09) to 4.80 (3.16-6.43) and 5.50 (2.86-8.17) nmol x g(-1) for control, waterborne, and dietary Cd, respectively. Fish exposed to dietary Cd accumulated a much greater overall chronic Cd body burden relative to fish exposed to waterborne Cd or control fish. The carcass accumulated the greatest percentage of total body Cd in control and waterborne-exposed fish, whereas the intestinal tissue accumulated the greatest percentage in dietary-exposed fish. Tissue-specific Cd burdens were highest in the kidney in both dietary and waterborne treatments. We conclude that chronic Cd exposure alters Cd uptake dynamics, and that the route of Cd exposure, whether waterborne or dietary, results in differences of internal Cd accumulation and branchial Cd uptake characteristics. These factors should be considered in future BLM development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".