Control of respiration in flight muscle from the high-altitude bar-headed goose and low-altitude birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bar-headed geese fly at altitudes of up to 9,000 m on their biannual migration over the Himalayas. To determine whether the flight muscle of this species has evolved to facilitate exercise at high altitude, we compared the respiratory properties of permeabilized muscle fibers from bar-headed geese and several low-altitude waterfowl species. Respiratory capacities were assessed for maximal ADP stimulation (with single or multiple inputs to the electron transport system) and cytochrome oxidase excess capacity (with an exogenous electron donor) and were generally 20-40% higher in bar-headed geese when creatine was present. When respiration rates were extrapolated to the entire pectoral muscle mass, bar-headed geese had a higher mass-specific aerobic capacity. This may represent a surplus capacity that counteracts the depressive effects of hypoxia on mitochondrial respiration. However, there were no differences in activity for mitochondrial or glycolytic enzymes measured in homogenized muscle. The [ADP] leading to half-maximal stimulation (K(m)) was approximately twofold higher in bar-headed geese (10 vs. 4-6 microM), and, while creatine reduced K(m) by 30% in this species, it had no effect on K(m) in low-altitude birds. Mitochondrial creatine kinase may therefore contribute to the regulation of oxidative phosphorylation in flight muscle of bar-headed geese, which could promote efficient coupling of ATP supply and demand. However, this was not based on differences in creatine kinase activity in isolated mitochondria or homogenized muscle. The unique differences in bar-headed geese existed without prior exercise or hypoxia exposure and were not a result of phylogenetic history, and may, therefore, be important evolutionary specializations for high-altitude flight.
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".