Comparing stress responses of F1 and domesticated striped bass ( <i>Morone saxatilis</i> ) following a repeated acute stressor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent growth in striped bass aquaculture has generated interest in broodstock development programs for improved growth, disease resistance and stress tolerance. This research evaluated differential stress responsiveness of captive-bred striped bass originating from Canada, Virginia, Florida and a domestic strain, following a repeated acute stressor. Fish were communally stocked into a six tank recirculating system, and fish in three tanks were net-chased for 1 min two days/week (stressed), and three undisturbed tanks served as controls. After 14 weeks, fish in the control and stressed treatments were chased, and blood collected from all fish in one tank per treatment at 0, 1 and 3 h post-stressor. Growth, cortisol, glucose, haematological indices and selected hepatic gene expression were compared among strains and between treatment groups. To further compare cortisol responsiveness, a second study was conducted with lower net chasing frequency (once/month) and cortisol measured. A cortisol stress response was not detected in Canada fish in either study, but all other strains exhibited similar expression patterns. Differences in plasma parameters, growth and immunocompetence were detected, but no single measure predicted greater growth. These results indicate that strains differ in acute stress responsiveness, which may be useful in selective breeding programs.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".