Data from: Adaptation and acclimation of aerobic exercise physiology in Lake Whitefish ecotypes (Coregonus clupeaformis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physiological mechanisms underlying local adaptation in natural populations of animals, and whether the same mechanisms contribute to adaptation and acclimation, are largely unknown. Therefore, we tested for evolutionary divergence in aerobic exercise physiology in laboratory bred, size-matched crosses of ancestral, benthic, normal Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) and derived, limnetic, more actively-swimming ‘dwarf’ ecotypes. We acclimated fish to constant swimming (emulating limnetic foraging) and control conditions (emulating normal activity levels) to simultaneously study phenotypic plasticity. We found extensive divergence between ecotypes: dwarf fish generally had constitutively higher values of traits related to oxygen transport (ventricle size) and use by skeletal muscle (percent oxidative muscle, mitochondrial content), and also evolved differential plasticity of mitochondrial function (Complex I activity and flux through Complexes I-IV and IV). The effects of swim-training were less pronounced than differences among ecotypes and the traits which had a significant training effect (ventricle protein content, ventricle MDH activity and muscle Complex V activity) did not differ among ecotypes. Only one trait, ventricle mass, varied in a similar manner with acclimation and adaptation and followed a pattern consistent with genetic accommodation. Overall, the physiological and biochemical mechanisms underlying acclimation and adaptation to swimming activity in Lake Whitefish generally differ.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.024 |
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".