Data from: Divergent transcriptional patterns are related to differences in hypoxia tolerance between the intertidal and the subtidal sculpins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcriptionally mediated phenotypic plasticity as a mechanism of modifying traits in response to an environmental challenge remains an important area of study. We compared the transcriptional responses to low-oxygen (hypoxia) of the hypoxia tolerant intertidal fish, the tidepool sculpin (Oligocottus maculosus) with the closely related hypoxia intolerant subtidal fish, the silverspotted sculpin (Blepsias cirrhosus) to determine if these species use different mechanisms to cope with hypoxia. Individuals from each species were exposed to environmental O2 tensions chosen to yield a similar level of tissue hypoxia and gene transcription was assessed in the liver over time. There was an effect of time in hypoxia, where the greatest transcriptional change in the silverspotted sculpin occurred between 3 to 24 hours in contrast to the tidepool sculpin where the largest transcriptional change occurred between 24 and 72 hours of hypoxia. A number of genes showed similar hypoxia-induced transcription patterns in both species (e.g. genes associated with glycolysis and apoptosis) suggesting they are involved in a conserved hypoxia response. A large set of genes showed divergent transcriptional patterns in the two species, including fatty acid oxidation and oxidative phosphorylation, suggesting that these biological processes may contribute to explaining variation in hypoxia tolerance in these species. When both species were exposed to a single environmental O2 tension, large transcriptional responses were seen in the hypoxia intolerant silverspotted sculpin while almost no response was observed in the hypoxia tolerant tidepool sculpin. Overall, divergent transcription patterns in response to both magnitude and duration of hypoxia provide insights into the processes that may determine an animal's capacity to tolerate frequent bouts of hypoxia in the wild.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".