MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CHARACTERIZATION OF PROTEASES IN THE SKIN MUCUS OF ATLANTIC SALMON (<i>SALMO SALAR)</i>INFECTED WITH THE SALMON LOUSE (<i>LEPEOPHTHEIRUS SALMONIS</i>) AND IN WHOLE-BODY LOUSE HOMOGENATE

2000· article· en· W2173882015 on OpenAlexafffund
Kara J. Firth, Stewart C. Johnson, Neil W. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parasitology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine BiosciencesUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLepeophtheirusSalmoBiologyMucusProteasesMicrobiologyTrypsinZoologyBiochemistryEnzymeFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of an investigation of the biochemical interactions between the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis and Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, we characterized protease activity in the skin mucus of noninfected Atlantic salmon and Atlantic salmon infected with L. salmonis and in an L. salmonis whole-body homogenate. Zymography revealed that mucus from infected salmon contained a series of low-molecular-mass (17-22 kDa) serine proteases that were not present in the mucus of noninfected salmon. Based on molecular mass, inhibition studies, and affinity chromatography, the series of proteases was identified as being trypsin-like. Similar proteases were observed in the L. salmonis homogenate and in mucus from noninfected Atlantic salmon following a 1-hr incubation with live L. salmonis. An antibody raised against Atlantic salmon trypsin failed to recognize any proteases in the mucus of noninfected salmon or infected salmon or in the L. salmonis homogenate. Collectively, these findings suggest that the trypsin-like proteases present in the mucus of infected Atlantic salmon were produced by L. salmonis, possibly to aid in feeding and evasion of host immune responses.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations102
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ParasitologySame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207