Hypoxic incubation blunts the development of thermogenesis in chicken embryos and hatchlings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We asked to what extent sustained hypoxia during embryonic growth might interfere with the normal development of thermogenesis. White Leghorn chicken eggs were incubated at 38 degrees C either in normoxia (Nx, 21% O2) or in hypoxia [Hx, 15% O2, from embryonic day 5 (E5) until hatching]. The Hx embryos had lower body weight (W) throughout incubation, and hatching was delayed by about 10 h. For both groups, all measurements were conducted in normoxia. At embryonic day E11, the static temperature-oxygen consumption (ambient T-Vo2) curve was typically ectothermic (Q10 = 1.92-1.94) and similar between Nx and Hx. Toward the end of incubation (E20), the Q10 averaged 1.41 +/- 0.06 in Nx and 1.79 +/- 0.08 in Hx (P < 0.005), indicating that the onset of the thermogenic response in Hx lagged behind Nx. In the 1-day-old hatchlings (H1), body weight did not significantly differ between Nx and Hx. At H1, the T-Vo2 curves were endothermic-type, and more so in the older (>8 h old) than in the newly hatched (<8 h old) chicks, whether examined statically or dynamically as a function of time. In either case, the thermogenic responses of Hx were lower than those of Nx. In a 43-31 degrees C thermocline, the preferred T of the Hx hatchlings was around 37.3 degrees C, and similar to Nx, suggesting a similar setpoint for thermoregulation. We conclude that hypoxic incubation blunted the development of thermogenesis. This could be interpreted as an example of epigenetic regulation, in which an environmental perturbation during early development alters the phenotypic expression of a regulatory system.
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".