MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242504272 · doi:10.1139/y00-093

Molecular characterization of the prolactin receptor in two fish species, tilapia<i>Oreochromis niloticus</i>and rainbow trout,<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>: A comparative approach

2000· article· en· W4242504272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick Prunet, Olivier Sandra, Philippe Le Rouzic, Oriane Marchand, Vincent Laudet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRainbow troutTilapiaOreochromisGillOsmoregulationProlactinTroutInternal medicineProlactin receptorEndocrinologyFisheryHormoneEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present recent information on the molecular characterization of the prolactin receptor (PRL-R) in two teleost species, tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), in the perspective of improved understanding of the physiological differences in the control of osmoregulatory function between these two fish species. Although our interest will mainly focus on osmoregulatory organs, we will also discuss evidence of the presence of PRL-R in other tissues such as gonads and hematopoietic organs. The first fish PRL-R was characterized in tilapia. This receptor is similar to that of the long form of mammalian PRL-R, but the most conserved region (extracellular domain) has only 53% identity with mammalian PRL-R. A rainbow trout PRL-R cDNA has been also isolated and appeared very similar in structure to tilapia PRL-R. Expression of the PRL-R gene was studied by Northern blotting for various tissues from tilapia and trout, and a unique transcript size of 3.2-3.4 kb was observed in all tissues studied (including male and female gonads, skin, brain, spleen, head, kidney, and circulating lymphocytes). Osmoregulatory organs (gills, kidney, intestine) were the richest tissues. Using in situ hybridization, PRL-R transcripts were localized in gill chloride cells, both in trout and tilapia. Analysis of PRL-R transcript levels in gills, kidney, and intestine indicated the maintenance of a high level of expression during adaptation to a hyperosmotic environment. These results support PRL being a pleiotropic hormone in fish and suggest the presence of a unique PRL-R form in tilapia and in trout. Finally, characterization of hormone receptor binding has been carried out in both species using a radioreceptor assay (in tilapia) or surface plasmon resonance (SPR) technology (in trout). These studies indicated the presence of a stable hormone-receptor complex in tilapia, while PRL binds to its receptor through an unstable homodimeric complex in trout. Thus, the characteristics of PRL binding on its receptor appear to be significantly different in tilapia and trout. Whether such differences may lead to different signal transduction mechanisms and osmoregulatory actions of PRL in these two euryhaline species merits further investigation.Key words: prolactin receptor, genetic expression, hormone-receptor interaction, surface plasmon resonance, fish osmoregulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations31
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207