Effects of chronic hypoxia on diaphragm function in deer mice native to high altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We examined the effects of chronic hypoxia on diaphragm function in high‐ and low‐altitude populations of Peromyscus mice. Methods Deer mice (P. maniculatus) native to high altitude and congeneric mice native to low altitude (P. leucopus) were born and raised in captivity to adulthood and were acclimated to normoxia or hypobaric hypoxia (12 or 9 kPa, simulating hypoxia at 4300 and 7000 m) for 6‐8 weeks. We then measured indices of mitochondrial respiration capacity, force production, and fatigue resistance in the diaphragm. Results Mitochondrial respiratory capacities (assessed using permeabilized fibres with single or multiple inputs to the electron transport system), citrate synthase activity (a marker of mitochondrial volume), twitch force production, and muscle fatigue resistance increased after exposure to chronic hypoxia in both populations. These changes were not well explained by variation in the fibre‐type composition of the muscle. However, there were several differences in diaphragm function in high‐altitude mice compared to low‐altitude mice. Exposure to a deeper level of hypoxia (9 kPa vs 12 kPa) was needed to elicit increases in mitochondrial respiration rates in highlanders. Chronic hypoxia did not increase the emission of reactive oxygen species from permeabilized fibres in highlanders, in contrast to the pronounced increases that occurred in lowlanders. In general, the diaphragm of high‐altitude mice had greater capillary length densities, produced less force in response to stimulation and had shorter relaxation times. The latter was associated with higher activity of sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+‐ATPase (SERCA) activity in the diaphragm of high‐altitude mice. Conclusion Overall, our work suggests that exposure to chronic hypoxia increases the capacities for mitochondrial respiration, force production and fatigue resistance of the diaphragm. However, many of these effects are opposed by evolved changes in diaphragm function in high‐altitude natives, such that highlanders in chronic hypoxia maintain similar diaphragm function to lowlanders in sea level conditions.
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".