A comparative and evolutionary approach to oxidative stress in fish: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oxidative stress results from an imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species and the antioxidants defences, in favour of the former. In recent years, the association between oxidative processes, environmental change and life histories has received much attention. However, most studies have focused on avian and mammalian taxonomic groups, with less attention given to fish, despite their ecological and socio‐economic relevance. Here we present a review of the extrinsic and intrinsic factors that influence oxidative processes in fish, using a comparative and evolutionary approach. We demonstrate that oxidative stress plays a key role in shaping fish's responses to environmental change as well as life history strategies. We focus on representative examples to compare and contrast how levels of oxidative stress respond to changes in temperature, salinity and oxygen availability. Furthermore, we describe how emerging threats (i.e. pollution) affect oxidative stress parameters in fish. Oxidative stress indicators are increasingly being used as biomarkers to understand the mechanisms of various human‐induced stressors, but also to understand the physiological consequences of how animals are distributed in space and time and influenced by different life stages. Despite the expansion of the field of ecological oxidative stress, we are only beginning to understand the complex ways in which oxidative stress may interact with both extrinsic and intrinsic factors in fish. We conclude with a research agenda for oxidative research on fish and note that there is need for further research particularly in the area of life history strategies and ecological implications of oxidative status, as this type of research has the potential to help us understand patterns and dynamics relevant to fish conservation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".