MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019051295 · doi:10.1111/are.14644

Induction of spawning in Pacific white shrimp <i>Litopenaeus vannamei</i> (Boone, 1931) by injection of its molt inhibiting hormone isoform II produced in <i>E. coli</i>

2020· article· en· W3019051295 on OpenAlexaff
Mayte González, Jesús Luis Betancourt, Tania Rodríguez‐Ramos, Laida Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVitellogenesisShrimpGene isoformEyestalkComplementary DNAInternal medicineHormoneEndocrinologyAndrologyEmbryoOocyteGeneCell biologyBiochemistryFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimization of reproductive parameters in shrimp farming continues to be a challenge for most producing countries. Although the crustacean neuropeptides have been studied extensively in the last two decades, the functions of most of these neuropeptides remained putative. Among them, molt-inhibiting hormone isoform II (MIH II) has shown an important role in vitellogenesis. In this study, the cDNA encoding mature MIH II peptide was isolated by RT-PCR from the L. vannamei eyestalk. The cDNA was cloned into pET28a bacterial expression vector. Recombinant MIH II was obtained in the form of insoluble inclusion bodies and purified to ~88% purity. Two doses of rMIH II and a negative control group were assayed in vivo. The stages of ovarian maturation and spawning were recorded during 72 hr post-injection. The results showed that ovarian maturation occurred approximately in 9% and 33% of females injected with rMIH II at the doses of 300 and 600 ng/gbw respectively. Neither maturation nor spawning was detected in the negative control group. Females injected with 600 ng/gbw, which showed vitellogenic stages III and IV, spawned. These preliminary results argue that the hormone rMIH II could be a promising candidate to induce spawning in L. vannamei shrimp.

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)0.002
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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquaculture ResearchSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207