The role of adrenergic stimulation in maintaining maximum cardiac performance in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>) during hypoxia,hyperkalemia and acidosis at 10°C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As rainbow trout approach exhaustion during prolonged exercise, they maintain maximum cardiac output despite the fact their venous blood, which bathes the heart, becomes hypoxic, acidotic and hyperkalemic. Because these factors are individually recognized to have detrimental inotropic and chronotropic effects on cardiac performance, we hypothesized that adrenergic stimulation is critical in maintaining maximum cardiac performance under these collectively adverse conditions in vivo. To test this hypothesis, maximum cardiac performance in the presence and absence of maximal adrenergic stimulation was assessed with in situ rainbow trout hearts using relevant hyperkalemic (5.0 mmol l(-1) K+), acidotic (pH 7.5) and hypoxic challenges. With tonic adrenergic stimulation (5.0 nmol l(-1) adrenaline), hearts produced only 44.8+/-14.6% of their normal maximum cardiac output when exposed under normoxic conditions (20 kPa) to the hyperkalemic, acidotic perfusate, indicating that in vivo there was no refuge from cardiac impairment even if venous blood was fully oxygenated. By contrast, maximum adrenergic stimulation (500 nmol l(-1) adrenaline), fully protected maximum cardiac performance under hyperkalemic and acidotic conditions over a wide range of oxygen availability, from normoxia to 2.0 kPa, a venous oxygen tension close to routine values in vivo. Extending the level of hypoxia to 1.3 kPa resulted in a 43.6+/-2.8% decrease in maximum cardiac output, with hearts failing when tested at 1.0 kPa. Our results suggest that adrenergic stimulation of the trout heart is critical in maintaining maximum performance during prolonged swimming tests, and probably during all forms of exhaustive activity and recovery, when venous blood is hyperkalemic, acidotic and hypoxic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".