Autonomic cardiac regulation facilitates acute heat tolerance in rainbow trout:<i>in situ</i>and<i>in vivo</i>support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute warming in fish increases heart rate (fH) and cardiac output to peak values, after which performance plateaus or declines and arrhythmia may occur. This cardiac response can place a convective limitation on systemic oxygen delivery at high temperatures. To test the hypothesis that autonomic cardiac regulation protects cardiac performance in rainbow trout during acute warming, we investigated adrenergic and cholinergic regulation during the onset and progression of cardiac limitations. We explored the direct effects of adrenergic stimulation by acutely warming an in situ, working, perfused heart until arrhythmia occurred, cooling the heart to restore rhythmicity and rewarming with increasing adrenergic stimulation. Adrenergic stimulation produced a clear, dose-dependent increase in the temperature and peak fH achieved prior to the onset of arrhythmia. To examine how this adrenergic protection functions in conjunction with cholinergic vagal inhibition in vivo, rainbow trout fitted with ECG electrodes were acutely warmed in a respirometer until they lost equilibrium (CTmax) with and without muscarinic (atropine) and β-adrenergic (sotalol) antagonists. Trout exhibited roughly equal and opposing cholinergic and adrenergic tones on fH that persisted up to critical temperatures. β-adrenergic blockade significantly lowered peak fH by 14-17%, while muscarinic blockade significantly lowered the temperature for peak fH by 2.0°C. Moreover, muscarinic and β-adrenergic blockers injected individually or together significantly reduced CTmax by up to 3°C, indicating for the first time that cardiac adrenergic stimulation and cholinergic inhibition can enhance acute heat tolerance in rainbow trout at the level of the heart and the whole animal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".