The development and application of a lipopolysaccharide immune challenge model using zebrafish (Danio rerio) to assess mitigation by 6-gingerol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The effect of parental age on larval survival following LPS exposure was measured. • Maternal age proved significant to larval survival post-LPS exposure. • Larvae in individual or grouped housing received 6-gingerol before LPS exposure. • 6-gingerol protects larvae from 18-month fish from LPS in all housing settings. As global aquaculture expands, new methods of improving fish health are being investigated. Immunomodulators, which are capable of improving the host response to pathogens, may be useful in this respect. When assessing efficacy of immunomodulators, fish age and housing conditions should be considered. In this study, larval zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) from parents of different ages were immune challenged between 72 and 96 h post fertilization (hpf) with lethal concentrations of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Pseudomonas Aeruginosa , and mortality was assessed. Maternal age had a significant effect on survival, with offspring from 6-month-old females being most susceptible to LPS. Then, mitigation potential of 6-gingerol was assessed by pre-exposing larvae, grouped, or housed individually, from parents of different ages to various concentrations of 6-gingerol between 24 and 72 hpf. At 72 hpf, larvae were immune challenged in egg water containing no LPS (control), or LPS (52.5 or 57 μg/mL) and survival was recorded at 96 hpf. While LPS exposure resulted in mortalities, 6-gingerol did not protect individual larvae from 6-month-old parents against LPS challenge. However, group housed larvae from parents of 18 months of age demonstrated some level of protection against LPS provided by 6-gingerol. This study provides preliminary evidence that 6-gingerol may be beneficial for supporting fish health, and that age and housing conditions can act as confounders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".