Divergent physiological responses in laboratory rats and mice raised at high altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological studies show that mice can be found at high altitude (HA - up to 4000 m) while rats are absent at these altitudes, and there are no data to explain this discrepancy. We used adult laboratory rats and mice that have been raised for more than 30 generations in La Paz, Bolivia (3600 m), and compared their hematocrit levels, right ventricular hypertrophy (index of pulmonary hypertension) and alveolar surface area in the lungs. We also used whole-body plethysmography, indirect calorimetry and pulse oxymetry to measure ventilation, metabolic rate (O2 consumption and CO2 production), heart rate and pulse oxymetry oxygen saturation (pO2 ,sat) under ambient conditions, and in response to exposure to sea level PO2 (32% O2=160 mmHg for 10 min) and hypoxia (18% and 15% O2=90 and 75 mmHg for 10 min each). The variables used for comparisons between species were corrected for body mass using standard allometric equations, and are termed mass-corrected variables. Under baseline, compared with rats, adult mice had similar levels of pO2 ,sat, but lower hematocrit and hemoglobin levels, reduced right ventricular hypertrophy and higher mass-corrected alveolar surface area, tidal volume and metabolic rate. In response to sea level PO2 and hypoxia, mice and rats had similar changes of ventilation, but metabolic rate decreased much more in hypoxia in mice, while pO2 ,sat remained higher in mice. We conclude that laboratory mice and rats that have been raised at HA for >30 generations have different physiological responses to altitude. These differences might explain the different altitude distribution observed in wild rats and mice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".