Purinergic and Cholinergic Drugs Mediate Hyperventilation in Zebrafish: Evidence from a Novel Chemical Screen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rapid test to identify drugs that affect autonomic responses to hypoxia holds therapeutic and ecologic value. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) is a convenient animal model for investigating peripheral O2 chemoreceptors and respiratory reflexes in vertebrates; however, the neurotransmitters and receptors involved in this process are not adequately defined. The goals of the present study were to demonstrate purinergic and cholinergic control of the hyperventilatory response to hypoxia in zebrafish, and to develop a procedure for screening of neurochemicals that affect respiration. Zebrafish larvae were screened in multi-well plates for sensitivity to the cholinergic receptor agonist, nicotine, and antagonist, atropine; and to the purinergic receptor antagonists, suramin and A-317491. Nicotine increased ventilation frequency (fV) maximally at 100 μM (EC50 = 24.5 μM). Hypoxia elevated fV from 93.8 to 145.3 breaths min-1. Atropine reduced the hypoxic response only at 100 μM. Suramin and A-317491 maximally reduced fV at 50 μM (EC50 = 30.4 and 10.8 μM) and abolished the hyperventilatory response to hypoxia. Purinergic P2X3 receptors were identified in neurons and O2-chemosensory neuroepithelial cells of the gills using immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy. These studies suggest a role for purinergic and nicotinic receptors in O2 sensing in fish and implicate ATP and acetylcholine in excitatory neurotransmission, as in the mammalian carotid body. We demonstrate a rapid approach for screening neuroactive chemicals in zebrafish with implications for respiratory medicine and carotid body disease in humans; as well as for preservation of aquatic ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".