Zebrafish (Danio rerio) behavioural response to an odorant mixture containing attracting and repelling odorants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Odorants guide essential activities such as foraging and fleeing predators. Studies usually examine behavioural and physiological effects of individual odorants, while animals in the environment are exposed to multiple stimuli simultaneously. In this study, we exposed zebrafish to a mixture of attraction-evoking and aversion-evoking amino acids, and behavioural responses were observed. Attraction to l -alanine and avoidance to l -cysteine were observed, and so these amino acids were used to make the mixture (zebrafish also avoided l -serine, but this was weaker than with l -cysteine exposures). When exposed to the mixture, fish responded with avoidance, which suggests that aversion-evoking stimuli outweigh attraction-evoking stimuli. Attraction towards the mixture was seen only when the concentration of l -cysteine was decreased from 0.1 to 0.001 mM. Olfactory ablation surgery confirmed that the behaviours were olfactory-mediated. Overall, this study demonstrated that odorant stimuli that repel outweigh stimuli that attract until their concentration decreases by as much as 100-fold.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".