MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136468831 · doi:10.1139/z10-081

Artificial maturation, fertilization, and early development of the American eel (Anguilla rostrata)

2010· article· en· W2136468831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth Oliveira, Whitney E. Hable

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthElectric Power Research Institute
KeywordsBiologyHuman fertilizationHatchingOocyteReproductionEmbryogenesisOvulationZoologyAnguilla rostrataFisheryEmbryoEcologyPregnancyAnatomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spawning for the American eel ( Anguilla rostrata (Le Sueur, 1817)) takes place in secretive locations within the Sargasso Sea, which has thus far prevented investigations of gametogenesis and early development in this ecologically and commercially important species. Attempts to induce maturation and reproduction in this species have been few and have produced limited results, with a single report of the production of gastrula-stage embryos. Here we report the successful maturation of female American eels. Maturation occurred within 13 weeks and ovulation was induced with a single injection of 17α,20β-dihydroxy-4-pregnen-3-one (DHP). Following in vitro fertilization, embryogenesis through hatching was observed and larvae were maintained for up to 6 days. We show that a crucial factor for successful fertilization is the stage of the oocyte at the time of induced ovulation. Oocytes that had not reached the migratory nucleus stage, or had passed this stage, were not successfully fertilized. These findings demonstrate that American eel can reproduce in the laboratory and previously untestable hypotheses pertaining to the developmental biology of this elusive species can now be explored.

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)0.001
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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations72
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207