The Release of Bystander Factor(s) from Tissue Explant Cultures of Rainbow Trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) after Exposure to γ Radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bystander response has been documented in cell lines and cell cultures derived from aquatic species over the past several years. However, little work has been undertaken to identify a similar bystander response in tissue explant cultures from fish. In this study, indirect effects of ionizing gamma radiation on tissue explant cultures of fish were investigated. Tissue explants in culture were exposed to 0.5 Gy and 5 Gy gamma radiation from a 60Co teletherapy unit. A bystander response in Epithelioma papulosum cyprini (EPC) cells exposed to gamma-irradiated tissue conditioned medium from rainbow trout explants was investigated, and the effects on cell survival were quantified by the clonogenic survival assay. Dichlorofluorescein and rhodamine 123 fluorescent dyes were used to identify alterations in reactive oxygen species (ROS) and mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), respectively. Results indicate a different response for the three tissue types investigated. Clonogenic assay results vary from a decrease in cell survival (gill) to no effect (skin) to a stimulatory effect (spleen). Results from fluorescence assays of ROS and MMP show similarities to clonogenic assay results. This study identifies a useful model for further studies relating to the bystander effect in aquatic organisms in vivo and ex vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".