Local inflammation at the salmon louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) attachment site contributes to copepodid rejection in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigates the susceptibility of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Pacific salmon species (pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha; coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch; and chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta) to the parasitic salmon lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis). The research had two main objectives: to characterize the morphology of the scaly skin in four salmonid species and to compare the cellular response at the louse attachment site in coho salmon and Atlantic salmon. Three consecutive challenge trials were conducted, with successful louse infestation only achieved across all four species in the third trial using mild anesthesia with tricaine methanesulfonate. Skin and fin samples were collected at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 168 h post-infestation (hpi) for histological, proteomic, and spatial transcriptomic analyses. Results showed that chum salmon had significantly higher mucous cell coverage (30-40%) in the epithelium of scaly skin compared to Atlantic salmon (10%). At the louse attachment site in coho salmon, there was a greater influx of inflammatory cells at 36-48 hpi compared to Atlantic salmon. Proteomic analysis at 12 hpi and 36 hpi in coho salmon showed upregulation of neutrophil degranulation and formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine signaling. Additionally, spatial transcriptomics at the attachment site showed local upregulation of inflammatory gene markers. These findings suggest that coho salmon mount a rapid and large-scale inflammatory response driven by neutrophils to louse attachment within the first 48 hpi. Overall, the study emphasizes the significance of local changes at the host-parasite interface for resistance mechanisms against salmon lice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".