MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169799073 · doi:10.1242/jeb.107664

Muscle fibre size optimisation provides flexibility to energy budgeting in calorie-restricted Coho salmon transgenic for growth hormone

2014· article· en· W2169799073 on OpenAlexaff
Ian A. Johnston, Daniel García de la serrana, Robert H. Devlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersScottish Funding CouncilMarine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland
KeywordsBiologyOncorhynchusTransgeneCalorie restrictionGrowth rateEndocrinologyCalorieInternal medicineMuscle fibreFish <Actinopterygii>Energy expenditureAnimal scienceGrowth hormoneHormoneFisherySkeletal muscleGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) transgenic for growth hormone (GH) show substantially faster growth than wild-type (WT) fish. We fed GH-transgenic salmon either to satiation (1 year; TF) or the same smaller ration of wild-type fish (2 years; TR), resulting in groups matched for body size to WT salmon. The myotomes of TF and WT fish had the same number and size distribution of muscle fibres, indicating a twofold higher rate of fibre recruitment in the GH transgenics. Unexpectedly, calorie restriction was found to decrease the rate of fibre production in transgenics, resulting in a 20% increase in average fibre size and reduced costs of ionic homeostasis. Genes for myotube formation were downregulated in TR relative to TF and WT fish. We suggest that muscle fibre size optimisation allows the reallocation of energy from maintenance to locomotion, explaining the observation that calorie-restricted transgenics grow at the same rate as WT fish whilst exhibiting markedly higher foraging activity.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207