Effects of Using Tricaine Methanesulfonate and Metomidate before Euthanasia on the Contractile Properties of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Myocardium.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because many anesthetics work through depressing cell excitability, unanesthetized euthanasia has become common for research involving excitable tissues (for example muscle and nerve) to avoid these depressive effects. However, anesthetic use during euthanasia may be indicated for studies involving isolated tissues if the potential depressive effects of brief anesthetic exposure dissipate after subsequent tissue isolation, washout, and saline perfusion. We explore this here by measuring whether, when applied prior to euthanasia, standard immersion doses of 2 fish anesthetics, tricaine methanesulfonate (TMS; 100 mg/L, n = 6) and methyl 1-(1-phenylethyl)-1H-imidazole-5-carboxylate (metomidate, 10 mg/L, n = 6), have residual effects on the contractile properties (force and work output) of isolated and saline-perfused ventricular compact myocardium from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Results suggest that direct exposure of muscle to immersion doses of TMS-but not metomidate-impairs muscle contractile performance. However, brief exposure (2 to 3 min) to either anesthetic during euthanasia only-providing that the agent is washed out prior to tissue experimentation-does not have an effect on the contractile properties of the myocardium. Therefore, the use of TMS, metomidate, and perhaps other anesthetics that depress cell excitability during euthanasia may be indicated when conducting research on isolated and rinsed tissues.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".