Are the effects of catch-and-release angling evident in changes to mRNA abundances related to metabolism, acid–base regulation and stress in lake trout (<i>Salvelinus namaycush)</i> gills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Catch-and-release (C&R) angling is a conservation-oriented practice intended to reduce the impact recreational angling has on fish populations. Even though most recreationally angled fish are released, little is known about how C&R angling impacts fish at the cellular or tissue level. As the first to explore the impacts of C&R angling on mRNA abundances, our study aimed to identify how the stress of angling influenced metabolism, acid–base regulation and cellular stress in the gills of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Because gills are responsible for metabolic gas exchange, are crucial sites of acid–base homeostasis and respond to stressors quickly, we hypothesized that the relative mRNA abundance of genes related to these three physiological processes would be altered after angling. We took gill samples of live lake trout at 0, 2 or 48 h after fish were angled by rod and reel, and then used quantitative PCR (qPCR) to measure the relative abundance of nine candidate mRNA transcripts. Heat shock protein 70 (hsp70) mRNA levels significantly increased over 5-fold 2 h after angling, indicating a potential activation of a cytoprotective response. However, contrary to our hypothesis, we observed no change in the relative mRNA abundance of genes related to metabolism or acid–base regulation in response to C&R angling within a 48-h period. As C&R angling can negatively impact fish populations, further use of transcript-level studies will allow us to understand the impact C&R has on specific tissues and improve our knowledge of how C&R influences overall fish health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".