MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3119277387 · doi:10.1101/2021.01.11.425815

Experimental corticosterone manipulation increases mature feather corticosterone content: implications for inferring avian stress history from feather analyses

2021· preprint· en· W3119277387 on OpenAlexafffund
Yaara Aharon‐Rotman, William A. Buttemer, Lee Koren, Katherine E. Wynne‐Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDeakin UniversityUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsFeatherCorticosteroneMoultingBiologyNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyFlight featherEcologyEndocrinologyLarvaHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feathers incorporate plasma corticosterone (CORT) during their development and, because feathers lack blood supply at maturity, the CORT content of feathers (CORTf) is presumed to represent an integrated average of plasma CORT levels during feather growth. We tested this assumption by quantifying CORTf in feathers of house sparrows (Passer domesticus) that were plucked before and after being implanted with either a corticosterone-filled, metyrapone-filled, or empty (sham) silastic capsule. Two of the seven flight feathers collected from each bird were fully grown when birds received implants. We found that CORTf of all seven feathers corresponded with treatment type, and with plasma CORT levels of non-moulting reference sparrows also given these implants. We also found that CORTf of the two mature feathers of each bird were 4 to 10-fold higher than values measured in new feathers. Given the avascular nature of mature feathers, and the fact that we did not wash the feathers prior to analysis, the most plausible explanation for our results is that CORT was externally deposited on feathers after implant. This outcome emphasises the need for follow-up studies to identify the external sources of CORT that may affect the CORTf of feathers. We hope this study will stimulate discussions and further much needed studies on the mechanism of CORT deposition in feathers and open exciting opportunities for application of such methods in ecological research, such as measuring multiple time scales in such a non-invasive manner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→