Comparative transcriptome profiles of four sexually size dimorphic fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual size dimorphism is widespread in fish species. Although sex growth differences in multiple species have been studied successively, the commonalities of regulatory mechanisms across sexually dimorphic species are unknown. In this study, we performed RNA-seq analysis of four representative fish (loach, half-smooth tongue sole, yellow catfish, and Nile tilapia) with significant growth differences between females and males. Clean reads were identified from four fish species, ranging from 45,718,052 to 57,733,120. Following comparison transcriptome analysis, there were 1,132 and 1,108, 1,290 and 1,102, 4,732 and 4,266, 748 and 192 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the brain and muscle of loach, half-smooth tongue sole, yellow catfish, and Nile tilapia, respectively. Furthermore, the expression levels were validated by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). Comparative transcriptome profiles of four fish described here will provide fundamental information for further studies on the commonalities of sexually size dimorphic fish in regulating growth differences between females and males.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 teacher head, 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".