MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084425167 · doi:10.1093/conphys/coaa057

Measurement of free glucocorticoids: quantifying corticosteroid binding capacity and its variation within and among mammal and bird species

2020· article· en· W3084425167 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan Delehanty, Gregory D. Bossart, Cory D. Champagne, Daniel E. Crocker, Kyle H. Elliott, Patricia A. Fair, Dorian S. Houser, Amy E. M. Newman, Rudy Boonstra

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceOffice of Naval ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBiologyMammalEcologyGlucocorticoidVariation (astronomy)ZoologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma glucocorticoid (CORT) levels are one measure of stress in wildlife and give us insight into natural processes relevant to conservation issues. Many studies use total CORT concentrations to draw conclusions about animals' stress state and response to their environment. However, the blood of tetrapods contains corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG), which strongly binds most circulating CORT. Only free CORT (CORT not bound by CBG) leaves the circulation and exerts biological effects on CORT-sensitive tissues. Measuring free CORT concentrations provides insight to an animal's stress response that cannot be revealed by simply measuring total CORT. To calculate free CORT concentrations in plasma or serum samples, one needs three measurements: the binding affinity of CBG for CORT (which varies by species), the total CORT concentration in the sample and the maximum corticosteroid binding capacity (MCBC) of CBG in the sample. Here, we detail the measurement of CBG binding capacity. We compare and contrast the three main methods to measure MCBC: charcoal, cell harvester and dialysis. Each is defined by the means by which free and bound CORT are separated. We weigh the relative merits and challenges of each. We conclude that sample volume, species and taxon binding specificity, and availability of equipment are the primary considerations in selecting the appropriate separation method. For most mammals, the charcoal method is recommended. For birds, the harvester method has critical advantages over the charcoal method. The dialysis method is widely regarded as the gold standard and has lower equipment costs but is more time-intensive and costly in terms of radioactive isotope needed and is less suited to processing large numbers of samples. The binding capacity of CBG varies tremendously within and among the bird and marine mammal species studied, and we discuss the implication of this variation for understanding the role of stress in wildlife.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207