MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556439948 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0676

Co-adjustment of yolk antioxidants and androgens in birds

2016· article· en· W2556439948 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Giraudeau, Simon Ducatez

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYolkBiologyOffspringOxidative stressMaternal effectTestosterone (patch)CarotenoidAndrogenEndocrinologyHormoneInternal medicineZoologyPregnancyEcologyBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mothers can shape the developmental trajectory of their offspring through the transmission of resources such as hormones, antioxidants or immunoglobulins. Over the last two decades, an abundant literature on maternal effects in birds has shown that several of these compounds (i.e. androgens, glucocorticoids and antioxidants) often influence the same offspring phenotypic traits (i.e. growth, immunity or oxidative stress levels), making interaction effects between egg components a likely scenario. However, the potential interactive effects of maternally transmitted compounds on offspring development and potential co-adjustment of these compounds within an egg are still poorly understood. Here, we report the results of an interspecific comparative analysis on birds' egg yolk composition (i.e. androgens and antioxidants) where we found that yolk carotenoid and vitamin E concentrations are positively associated, supporting the hypothesis that these two antioxidants act in synergy. The concentrations of vitamin E also increased with increasing concentrations of testosterone. This last result confirms the emerging idea that androgens and antioxidants are co-adjusted within eggs and that maternally transmitted antioxidants might limit the potential direct and indirect effects of prenatal exposure to high testosterone levels on oxidative stress.

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 score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207