Species differences in respiratory rhythm generation in rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the role of riluzole (RIL)- and flufenamic acid (FFA)-sensitive mechanisms in respiratory rhythmogenesis in rats and hamsters using the in situ arterially perfused preparation. Based on the hypothesis that respiratory networks in animals capable of autoresuscitation would have a greater prevalence of membrane mechanisms that promote endogenous bursting, we predicted that older (weaned) hamsters (a hibernating species) would be more sensitive to the blockade of RIL- and FFA-sensitive mechanisms than age-matched rats and that younger (preweaned) rats would behave more like hamsters. Consistent with this, we found that respiratory motor output in weaned hamsters [>21 days postnatal (P21)] was highly sensitive to RIL (0.2-20 muM), while in young rats (P12-14) it was less so (only affected at higher concentrations of RIL), and weaned rats were not affected at all. On the other hand, respiratory motor output was equally reduced by FFA (0.25-25 muM) in both young and weaned rats but was unaffected in weaned hamsters. Coapplication of RIL and FFA (RIL + FFA) produced greater inhibition of respiration in both young and weaned rats compared with either drug alone. In contrast, in weaned hamsters, FFA coapplication offset the inhibitory effect of RIL alone. Increasing respiratory drive with hypercapnia/acidosis ameliorated the respiratory inhibition produced by RIL + FFA in weaned rats but had no effect in young rats. Data from the present study indicate that respiratory rhythmogenesis in young rats is more dependent on excitatory RIL-sensitive and FFA-sensitive mechanisms than older rats and that fundamental differences exist in the respiratory rhythmogenic mechanisms between rats and hamsters.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".