Carotenoid accumulation in copepods is related to lipid metabolism and reproduction rather than to UV‐protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accumulation of carotenoid pigments in copepods has often been described as a plastic adaptation providing photoprotection against ultraviolet radiation (UVR). However, reports of seasonal carotenoid maxima in winter, when UVR is low, challenge the proposed driving role of UVR. Therefore, we here evaluate the mechanistic connection between UVR and the seasonal pattern of copepod carotenoid pigmentation. We assessed the carotenoids, fatty acid content and reproduction of Leptodiaptomus minutus along with UVR exposure, water temperature, phytoplankton pigments, and fish predation in a boreal lake during 18 months covering two winter seasons. The predominant carotenoid astaxanthin occurred in free form as well as esterified with fatty acids. Mono‐ and diesters accounted for 62–93% of total astaxanthin and varied seasonally in close correlation with fatty acids. The seasonal variability in total astaxanthin content of the copepods was characterized by net accumulation in late fall of up to 0.034 μg (mg dry mass)−1 d−1, which led to the mid‐winter maximum of 3.89 ± 0.31 μg mg−1. The two periods of net loss (−0.018 μg mg−1 d−1 and −0.021 μg mg−1 d−1) coincided with peaks of egg production in spring and summer leading to minimum astaxanthin content (0.86 ± 0.03 μg mg−1) in fall. This period was also characterized by the highest predation pressure by young‐of‐the‐year fish. The results suggest that accumulation of astaxanthin in copepods is strongly related to lipid metabolism but not to UVR‐photoprotection, and that seasonal changes of fatty acids and carotenoids are related to the reproduction cycle.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".