MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159999796 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2014-0128

Functional and physiological resistance of crayfish to amphibian toxins: tetrodotoxin resistance in the white river crayfish (<i>Procambarus</i> <i>acutus</i>)

2014· article· en· W2159999796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natasha Wilson, Amber N. Stokes, Gareth R. Hopkins, Edmund D. Brodie, Craig Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrayfishBiologyTetrodotoxinProcambarus clarkiiZoologyPredationEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater crayfish are reported to consume early life-history stages of a number of toxic amphibians. Although previous research indicates toxic amphibians are palatable to crayfish, the potential toxicity associated with consumption of toxic prey has been poorly described. We sought to characterise the supposed tetrodotoxin (TTX) resistance of freshwater crayfish, which have been observed to eat the eggs and larvae of toxic Taricha Gray, 1850 newts. White river crayfish (Procambarus acutus (Girard, 1852)) consumed 7.7 ± 4.0 Rough-skinned Newt (Taricha granulosa (Skilton, 1849)) eggs (mean ± SD) when offered 10 eggs in controlled feeding trials. Eggs were determined to contain a concentration of 1239 ± 571 ng (mean ± SD) of TTX. A dose-response assay was then performed to compare ingested doses with physiological TTX resistance. Crayfish were highly susceptible to TTX when administered as an intramuscular injection; TTX doses of 0.1 mass-adjusted mouse units were lethal to 100% of P. acutus crayfish. We established that while crayfish were capable consumers of highly toxic newt eggs, these decapods did not demonstrate physiological resistance to TTX. These findings suggest that crayfish have some functional resistance that renders them capable of consuming TTX-bearing prey despite a lack of physiological resistance to TTX.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207