A comparison of gene expression by differential display in a salinomycin-sensitive and -resistant strain of Eimeria tenella
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study the differential display technique was used to identify differentially expressed genes between a salinomycin-resistant strain of ' Eimeria tenella' and the salinomycin-sensitive Guelph strain. The sporulated oocyst and sporocysts/sporozoites at various times during the process of excystation were used in the study. Since ionophorous compounds primarily affect the invasive sporozoite, this study focussed largely on this stage. Various bands were differentially displayed between the two strains and also during different stages and treatments within the same strain. Variation in individual species of mRNA were observed to occur in the mid to late stages of excystation. Additionally, a differentially amplified fragment was noted between sporozoites of the salinomycin-sensitive Guelph strain and the salinomycin-resistant strain subjected to treatment in PBS and salinomycin. Two cDNA fragments, found to be differentially displayed with the salinomycin-resistant strain of 'E. tenella' sporozoites incubated in PBS were isolated and cloned. Northern blot analysis revealed that the expression of a 1.5 kb fragment, appeared approximately 45 minutes into excystation and continued to be present throughout excystation. At the completion of excystation, the transcripts observed with the salinomycin-sensitive Guelph strain incubated in PBS were of higher molecular size (~1.35 and 1.15 kb) than when this strain was treated with salinomycin (~1.30 and 1.10 kb). The salinomycin-resistant strain incubated in PBS or treated with salinomycin each had two transcripts of approximately 1.30 and 1.10 kb. The expression rapidly declined in the salinomycin-resistant strain treated with salinomycin but the level of expression in the salinomycin-sensitive strain remained relatively constant.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".