MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913319532 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35826-1

Importance of Experimental Environmental Conditions in Estimating Risks and Associated Uncertainty of Transgenic Fish Prior to Entry into Nature

2019· article· en· W2913319532 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy E. Vandersteen, Rosalind A. Leggatt, L. Fredrik Sundström, Robert H. Devlin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCoast Mountain CollegeFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredationTransgenePhenotypic plasticityGenotypeHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>Gene–environment interactionAnimal scienceEcologyGeneGeneticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salmonids show a high degree of phenotypic plasticity that can differ among genotypes, and this variation is one of the major factors contributing to uncertainty in extrapolating laboratory-based risk assessment data to nature. Many studies have examined the relative growth and survival of transgenic and non-transgenic salmonids, and the results have been highly variable due to genotype × environment interactions. The relative survival of fast- and slow-growing strains can reverse depending on the environment, but it is not clear which specific environmental characteristics are driving these responses. To address this question, two experiments were designed where environmental conditions were varied to investigate the contribution of rearing density, food amount, food type, habitat complexity, and risk of predation on relative growth and survival of fast-growing transgenic and slow-growing wild-type coho salmon. The first experiment altered density (high vs. low) and food amount (high vs. low). Density impacted the relative growth of the genotypes, where transgenic fish grew more than non-transgenic fish in low density streams, regardless of food level. Density also affected survival, with high density causing increased mortality for both genotypes, but the mortality of transgenic relative to non-transgenic fish was lower within the high-density streams, regardless of food level. The second experiment altered habitat complexity (simple vs. complex), food type (artificial vs. natural), amount of food (normal vs. satiation), and risk of predation (present vs. absent). Results from this experiment showed that genotype affected growth and survival, but genotype effects were modulated by one or more environmental factors. The effect of genotype on survival was influenced by all examined environmental factors, such that no predictable trend in relative survival of transgenic versus non-transgenic fry emerged. This was primarily due to variations in survival of non-transgenic fish under different environmental conditions (non-transgenic fry had highest survival in hatchery conditions, and lowest survival in complex conditions with natural food fed at a normal level with or without predators). Transgenic fry survival was only significantly influenced by predator presence. The effects of genotype on mass and length were significantly modulated by food type only. Transgenic fry were able to gain a large size advantage over non-transgenic fish when fed artificial food under all habitat types. These experiments support the observations of dynamic responses in growth and survival depending on the environment, and demonstrate the challenge of applying laboratory-based experiments to risk assessment in nature.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207