Temperature dependence of cardiac sarcoplasmic reticulum function in rainbow trout myocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore how the cardiac sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) functions over a range of temperatures, we used whole-cell voltage clamp combined with rapid caffeine application to study SR Ca(2+) accumulation, release and steady-state content in atrial myocytes from rainbow trout. Myocytes were isolated from rainbow trout acclimated to 14 degrees C, and the effect of varying stimulation pulse number, frequency and experimental temperature (7 degrees C, 14 degrees C and 21 degrees C) on SR function was studied. To add physiological relevance, in addition to 200 ms square (SQ) voltage pulses, myocytes were stimulated with temperature-specific action potentials (AP) applied at relevant frequencies for each test temperature. We found that the SR accumulated Ca(2+) more rapidly and to a greater concentration (1043+/-189 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+), 1138+/-173 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+), and 1095+/-142 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+) at 7 degrees C, 14 degrees C and 21 degrees C, respectively) when stimulated with physiological AP waveforms at physiological frequencies compared with 200 ms SQ pulses at the same frequencies (664+/-180 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+), 474+/-75 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+) and 367+/-42 micromol l(-1) Ca(2+) at 7 degrees C, 14 degrees C and 21 degrees C, respectively). Also, and in contrast to 200 ms SQ pulse stimulation, temperature had little effect on steady-state SR Ca(2+) accumulation during AP stimulation. Furthermore, we observed SR-Ca(2+)-dependent inactivation of the L-type Ca(2+) channel current (I(Ca)) at 7 degrees C, 14 degrees C and 21 degrees C, providing additional evidence of maintained SR function in fish hearts over an acute range of temperatures. We conclude that the waveform of the AP may be critical in ensuring adequate SR Ca(2+) cycling during temperature change in rainbow trout in vivo.
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".