MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing the synergistic effects of GnRH and testosterone on the reproductive physiology of pre‐adult pink salmon<i>Oncorhynchus gorbuscha</i>

2010· article· en· W2137022502 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn T. Crossin, S. G. Hinch, Steven J. Cooke, D. Patterson, A. G. Lotto, Glen Van Der Kraak, Yonathan Zohar, Ulrike Klenke, Anthony P. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphSimon Fraser UniversityFisheries and Oceans CanadaCarleton UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOncorhynchusInternal medicineEndocrinologyTestosterone (patch)VitellogenesisHypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axisphotoperiodismGonadosomatic IndexHormoneReproductionGonadotropin-releasing hormoneAndrostenedioneFish <Actinopterygii>AndrogenLuteinizing hormoneEmbryoFisheryOocyteEcologyMedicineFecundity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To test the hypothesis that the hypothalmic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and testosterone (T) co-treatment stimulates both the hypothalmo-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) and hypothalmo-pituitary-interrenal axes, the reproductive and osmoregulatory responses of pre-adult pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha were compared after GnRH and T administration either alone or in combination. Relative to controls, neither GnRH nor T treatment resulted in significantly greater ovarian or testicular growth, but co-treatment significantly increased ovarian growth after 5 months. Interestingly, the stimulation was undetectable after 3 months. However, once daily photoperiod began shortening after the summer solstice, c. 2 months before the natural spawning date, GnRH+T-treated females were stimulated to produce larger ovaries. Final fish body length and the size of individual eggs did not differ among treatment groups. GnRH+T eggs, however, showed signs of advanced vitellogenesis relative to GnRH-treated and control eggs, whereas T-treated eggs became atretic. Testis size increased significantly from initial values and most males were spermiating, but this growth and development were independent of hormone treatments. Final plasma ion, metabolite and cortisol concentrations did not differ among treatment groups. It is concluded that GnRH+T co-treatment was effective in stimulating female but not male maturation. GnRH and T treatment, however, presumably had little effect on the hypothalmo-pituitary-interrenal axis as observed by ionoregulatory status.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207