MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410249053 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-01069-0

Integration of photoperiod and time-restricted feeding on the circadian gene rhythms in juvenile salmon

2025· article· en· W4410249053 on OpenAlexafffund
Maryam Thraya, Heidi Abou-Akl, Dylan E. Roberts, Daniel D. Heath, Trevor E. Pitcher, Vania Carmona‐Alcocer, Phillip Karpowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsCircadian rhythmJuvenilephotoperiodismBiologyRhythmZoologyFisheryEcologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The circadian clock has evolved to synchronize animal behaviour and physiology with the external environment. Present in almost all cells, the clock is made up of a transcription-translation feedback loop that is responsive to cues such as light/dark cycles (photoperiod) and the time of feeding. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is a fish species whose clock is thought to be adapted in natural populations according to their latitude, where photoperiod variation can be extreme in northern spring/summer conditions. Here, we probed for the expression of circadian clock genes in four tissues of juvenile Chinook salmon under different environmental conditions. We find that the circadian clock is optimal when photoperiod is coupled with regular feeding during daylight hours. We further tested the effects of constant light and time-restricted feeding, environmental factors that are known to affect daily gene expression rhythms, on the expression of clock genes, appetite-regulating hormones, and metabolic regulators in the intestine of juvenile Chinook. We find that overall constant light is chrono-disruptive irrespective of the timing of food. The resulting disruption in gene expression produces aberrant rhythms, and affects glucose homeostasis, despite an increase in growth. Our data suggests photoperiod and time-restricted feeding could be optimized in Chinook aquaculture and raise the question of whether and how photoperiod changes are compensated in northern-adapted populations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicCircadian rhythm and melatonin→French-language works237,207→