MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410376284 · doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02332-y

Evolution of warming tolerance alters physiology and life history traits in zebrafish

2025· article· en· W4410376284 on OpenAlexaff
Anna H. Andreassen, Jeff C. Clements, Rachael Morgan, Davide Spatafora, Moa Metz, Eirik R. Åsheim, Christophe Pélabon, Fredrik Jutfelt

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Climate Change · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersGöteborgs UniversitetNorges ForskningsrådEuropean Commission
KeywordsZebrafishBiologyClimate changeGlobal warmingEcologyPhysiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Evolution of warming tolerance may help species resist the impacts of climate change but can also lead to negative fitness outcomes. Identifying correlated responses to warming tolerance evolution could identify such negative consequences and help uncover the underlying mechanisms. By assessing the correlated responses of life history and physiological traits to seven generations of artificial selection to increase or decrease the acute upper thermal tolerance limit (CTmax) in zebrafish (Danio rerio), we show that warming-adapted lines have improved cooling tolerance. Furthermore, the absence of difference between selected lines in aerobic metabolic scope, brain heat shock protein levels, fecundity, growth or swimming speed contradicts several hypotheses concerning the mechanisms controlling acute warming tolerance. These results suggest that selection due to acute heating events does not target variation in metabolic rates but can benefit tolerance to cold, making individuals more resilient to extreme temperature events.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Climate ChangeSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207