Distribution of lipid droplets in the gut epithelium of <i>Ophryotrocha cyclops</i> from aquaculture sites and whale bones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophryotrocha cyclops Salvo et al. 2014 is a dorvilleid known from aquaculture sites in Newfoundland (Canada) and experimentally deployed whale bones in Greenland. At aquaculture sites, O. cyclops feed on microbes and lipid-rich fish pellets, and lipid droplets were observed in their midgut epithelium. These droplets might represent energy stores, and their abundance could vary according to habitat and food availability and along the length of the gut. To explore this, we quantified the relative surface area covered by lipid droplets in transverse sections of the gut epithelium of 15 O. cyclops from aquaculture sites and whale bones, comparing percent coverage in anterior, middle and posterior regions. We also explored the effects of starvation on lipid droplet coverage. In annelids from aquaculture sites, the percent coverage of lipids was higher in anterior and middle compared to posterior regions, and an apparent percent coverage decline in all body regions was observed with increasing length of starvation. In contrast, O. cyclops from whale bones contained few lipid droplets in their gut epithelium. Our limited samples suggest that O. cyclops consumes lipids at aquaculture sites. Additional work should examine whether lipid accumulation and storage might affect survival and reproductive output in these dorvilleids.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".