MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171708111 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.102.004572

Expression of Pejerrey Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone in Three Orders of Fish1

2002· article· en· W2171708111 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo M. Somoza, David W. Lescheid, Leandro A. Miranda, Fabiana L. Lo Nostro, Lucia Magliulo-Cepriano, Alejandro D. Montaner, Martin P. Schreibman, Jean Rivier, Nancy M. Sherwood

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyXiphophorusAntiserumRadioimmunoassayEndocrinologyInternal medicineFish <Actinopterygii>Molecular biologyZoologyAntibodyGeneticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular variants of GnRH were characterized by reverse-phase, high-performance liquid chromatography from brain extracts of fish in three different orders: Synbranchiformes (swamp eel [Synbranchus marmoratus]), Cyprinidontiformes (platyfish [Xiphophorus maculatus] and green swordtail [X. helleri]), and Atheriniformes (Patagonia pejerrey [Odontesthes hatchery]). Also, pituitary gland extracts from the pejerrey O. bonariensis (Atheriniformes) were characterized. Eluted fractions were tested in radioimmunoassays with antisera specific to GnRH, including both antisera that detected only one form of GnRH and those that detected several forms. The results show that brain extracts obtained from all species contained the same three molecular forms of GnRH, which were immunologically and chromatographically undistinguishable from chicken GnRH-II, pejerrey GnRH (pjGnRH), and salmon GnRH. This study supports the hypothesis that expression of these three forms is common in different fish orders and that pjGnRH is the main regulator of pituitary function in these fish.

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)0.001
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207