Ancient gill and lung oscillators may generate the respiratory rhythm of frogs and rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though the mechanics of breathing differ fundamentally between amniotes and "lower" vertebrates, homologous rhythm generators may drive air breathing in all lunged vertebrates. In both frogs and rats, two coupled oscillators, one active during the inspiratory (I) phase and the other active during the preinspiratory (PreI) phase, have been hypothesized to generate the respiratory rhythm. We used opioids to uncouple these oscillators. In the intact rat, complete arrest of the external rhythm by opioid-induced suppression of the putative I oscillator, that is, pre-Bötzinger complex (PBC) oscillator, did not arrest the putative PreI oscillator. In the unanesthetized frog, the comparable PreI oscillator, that is, the putative buccal/gill oscillator, was refractory to opioids even though the comparable I oscillator, the putative lung oscillator, was arrested. Studies in en bloc brainstem preparations derived from both juvenile frogs and metamorphic tadpoles confirmed these results and suggested that opioids may play a role in the clustering of lung bursts into episodes. As the frog and rat respiratory circuitry produce functionally equivalent motor outputs during lung inflation, these data argue for a close homology between the frog and rat oscillators. We suggest that the respiratory rhythm of all lunged vertebrates is generated by paired coupled oscillators. These may have originated from the gill and lung oscillators of the earliest air breathers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".