Optimum Temperature in Juvenile Salmonids: Connecting Subcellular Indicators to Tissue Function and Whole-Organism Thermal Optimum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temperature affects processes at all levels of biological organization, but it is unclear whether processes at different levels have similar thermal optima (T(opt)). Here, we compare the T(opt) for aerobic scope, a whole-organism measure of performance, with both the Arrhenius breakpoint temperature for maximum heart rate (HR-ABT), a measure of tissue level performance, and the temperature at which AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is phosphorylated in the heart, an indicator of an increase in dependence on anaerobic energy metabolism at the cellular level in juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. The T(opt) for aerobic scope was 19°C, with aerobic scope being maintained at ≥90% of maximum (termed a "T(opt) window") from 16.5° to 20.5°C. HR-ABT occurred at [Formula: see text], while the profile of AMPK phosphorylation started to change from baseline at 19°C, suggesting that these processes have similar thermal sensitivities as a fish is warmed to T(opt). The effects of temperature on AMPK phosphorylation were also measured in coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch hearts and compared with previously published values for HR-ABT and aerobic scope T(opt). AMPK phosphorylation in coho hearts began to change at temperatures above 17°C, which again is comparable with the published T(opt) for aerobic scope (17°C) and HR-ABT ([Formula: see text]) in these individuals. Thus, the thermal sensitivity of these subcellular, tissue, and whole-organism functions are highly correlated in both rainbow trout and coho salmon and may depend on each other.
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) | 0.001 | 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".