Evolution of Air-Breathing and Central CO2/H+ Respiratory Chemosensitivity: New Insights From an Old Fish?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While little is known of the origin of air-breathing in vertebrates, primitive air breathers can be found among extant lobe-finned (Sarcopterygii) and ray-finned (Actinopterygii) fish. The descendents of Sarcopterygii, the tetrapods, generate lung ventilation using a central pattern generator, the activity of which is modulated by central and peripheral CO(2)/H(+) chemoreception. Air-breathing in Actinopterygii, in contrast, has been considered a 'reflexive' behaviour with little evidence for central CO(2)/H(+) respiratory chemoreceptors. Here, we describe experiments using an in vitro brainstem preparation of a primitive air-breathing actinopterygian, the longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus. Our data suggest (i) that gill and air-breathing motor patterns can be produced autonomously by the isolated brainstem, and (ii) that the frequency of the air-breathing motor pattern is increased by hypercarbia. These results are the first evidence consistent with the presence of an air-breathing central pattern generator with central CO(2)/H(+) respiratory chemosensitivity in any primitive actinopterygian fish. We speculate that the origin of the central neuronal controller for air-breathing preceded the divergence of the sarcopterygian and actinopterygian lineages and dates back to a common air-breathing ancestor.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".