Using a metabolomics approach to investigate the sensitivity of a potential Arctic-invader and its Arctic sister-species to marine heatwaves and traditional harvesting disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal species are threatened by fishing practices and changing environmental conditions, such as marine heatwaves (MHW). The mechanisms that confer tolerance to such stressors in marine invertebrates are poorly understood. However, differences in tolerance among different species may be attributed to their geographical distribution. To test the tolerance of species occupying different thermal ranges, we used two closely related bivalves the softshell clam Mya arenaria (Linnaeus, 1758), a cold-temperate invader with demonstrated potential for establishment in the Arctic, and the blunt gaper Mya truncata (Linnaeus, 1758), a native polar species. Clams were subjected to a thermal stress, mimicking a MHW, and harvesting stress in a controlled environment. Seven acute temperature changes (2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, and 32 °C) were tested at two harvesting disturbance intensities (with, without). Survival was measured after 12 days and three tissues (gills, mantle, and posterior adductor muscle) collected from surviving individuals for targeted metabolomic profiling. MHW tolerance differed significantly between species: 26.9 °C for M. arenaria and 17.8 °C for M. truncata, with a negligeable effect of harvesting. At the upper thermal limit, M. arenaria displayed a more profound metabolomic remodelling when compared to M. truncata, and this varied greatly between tissue types. Network analysis revealed differences in pathway utilization at the upper MHW limit, with M. arenaria displaying a greater reliance on multiple DNA repair and expression and cell signalling pathways, while M. truncata was limited to fewer pathways. This suggests that M. truncata is ill equipped to cope with warming environments. MHW patterning in the Northwest Atlantic may be a strong predictor of population survival and future range shifts in these two clam species. As polar environments undergo faster rates of warming compared to the global average, M. truncata may be outcompeted by M. arenaria expanding into its native range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".