MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508534868 · doi:10.4238/gmr.15038620

Effect of polychlorinated biphenyls on osmoregulatory response and apoptosis in GIFT tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus

2016· article· en· W2508534868 on OpenAlexaff
Yao Zheng, Liping Qiu, Lili Fan, Changyou Song, Shunlong Meng, J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics and Molecular Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOreochromisTilapiaGenotoxicityChemistryApoptosisKidneyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyToxicityInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryFisheryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, GIFT tilapia Oreochromis niloticus were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for 7, 14, and 21 days.Over the duration of the exposure, genotoxicity and the activity of Na + /K + -ATPase (NKA) and Ca + /Mg + -ATPase (CMA) were measured in the gill, kidney, and intestine, to evaluate changes in osmoregulatory response in O. niloticus.Our results showed significant decreases in organic NKA (except in gill tissues after 0.5 mg/L PCB-exposure) and CMA activity.The results of the genotoxicity assay showed significant increases in atp1a1a, nkcc2 (only in gill tissue), and fxyd7 (except after Y. Zheng et al.Genetics and Molecular Research 15 (3): gmr.1503862021 days of 5 mg/L PCB exposure).We found significant increases in caspase proteins in the liver in the 5-mg/L PCB exposure group, and the transcripts showed dose-dependent increases between treatment groups over the exposure duration.This study presents evidence that chronic exposure to PCB could result in organic osmoregulatory response and hepatic apoptosis in GIFT tilapia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics and Molecular ResearchSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207