Xenoma formation during microsporidial gill disease of salmonids caused by Loma salmonae is affected by host species (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. kisutch, O. mykiss) but not by salinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host species and salinity often affect the development of disease in aquatic species. Eighty chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, 80 coho salmon O. kisutch and 80 rainbow trout O. mykiss were infected with Loma salmonae. Forty of each species were reared in seawater and 40 in freshwater. The mean number of xenomas per gill filament was 8 to 33 times greater in chinook salmon than in rainbow trout (RBT). Coho salmon had a mean xenoma intensity intermediate to that of chinook salmon and RBT. In contrast to the differences between species, salinity had no significant effect on xenoma intensity in any of these host species. The onset of xenoma formation occurred at Week 5 postexposure (PE) for chinook salmon and RBT, and at Week 6 PE for coho salmon. RBT had cleared all visible branchial xenomas by Week 9 PE, whereas xenomas persisted in coho and chinook salmon at Week 9 PE. Histologically, xenomas were visible in the filament arteries of the branchial arch in chinook and coho salmon gills but were absent from RBT gills. Fewer xenomas were seen in the central venous sinusoids of RBT than in chinook and coho salmon. The lower xenoma intensity, shorter duration of infection and pathological characteristics, common to microsporidial gill disease in RBT, suggest a degree of resistance to clinical disease that is not seen in coho and chinook salmon.
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".