The intercellular organization of the two muscular systems in the adult salmonid heart, the compact and the spongy myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ventricle of the salmonid heart consists of an outer compact layer of circumferentially arranged cardiomyocytes encasing a spongy myocardium that spans the lumen of the ventricle with a fine arrangement of muscular trabeculae. While many studies have detailed the anatomical structure of fish hearts, few have considered how these two cardiac muscle architectures are attached to form a functional working unit. The present study considers how the spindle-like cardiomyocytes, unlike the more rectangular structure of adult mammalian cardiomyocytes, form perpendicular connections between the two muscle layers that withstand the mechanical forces generated during cardiac systole and permit a simultaneous, coordinated contraction of both ventricular components. Therefore, hearts of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) were investigated in detail using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and various light microscopic techniques. In contrast to earlier suggestions, we found no evidence for a distinct connective tissue layer between the two muscle architectures that might 'glue' together the compact and the spongy myocardium. Instead, the contact layer between the compact and the spongy myocardium was characterized by a significantly higher amount of desmosome-like (D) and fascia adhaerens-like (FA) adhering junctions compared with either region alone. In addition, we observed that the trabeculae form muscular sheets of fairly uniform thickness and variable width rather than thick cylinders of variable diameter. This sheet-like trabecular anatomy would minimize diffusion distance while maximizing the area of contact between the trabecular muscle and the venous blood as well as the muscle tension generated by a single trabecular sheet.
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".