Maximum cardiac performance of Antarctic fishes that lack haemoglobin and myoglobin: exploring the effect of warming on nature’s natural knockouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Antarctic notothenioids, some of which lack myoglobin (Mb) and/or haemoglobin (Hb), are considered extremely stenothermal, which raises conservation concerns since Polar regions are warming at unprecedented rates. Without reliable estimates of maximum cardiac output ($\dot{Q}$), it is impossible to assess their physiological scope in response to warming seas. Therefore, we compared cardiac performance of two icefish species, Chionodraco rastrospinosus (Hb−Mb+) and Chaenocephalus aceratus (Hb−Mb−), with a related notothenioid, Notothenia coriiceps (Hb+Mb+) using an in situ perfused heart preparation. The maximum $\dot{Q}$, heart rate (fH), maximum cardiac work (WC) and relative ventricular mass of N. coriiceps at 1°C were comparable to temperate-water teleosts, and acute warming to 4°C increased fH and WC, as expected. In contrast, icefish hearts accommodated a higher maximum stroke volume (VS) and maximum $\dot{Q}$ at 1°C, but their unusually large hearts had a lower fH and maximum afterload tolerance than N. coriiceps at 1°C. Furthermore, maximum VS, maximum $\dot{Q}$ and fH were all significantly higher for the Hb−Mb+ condition compared with the Hb−Mb− condition, a potential selective advantage when coping with environmental warming. Like N. coriiceps, both icefish species increased fH at 4°C. Acutely warming C. aceratus increased maximum $\dot{Q}$, while C. rastrospinosus (like N. coriiceps) held at 4°C for 1 week maintained maximum $\dot{Q}$ when tested at 4°C. These experiments involving short-term warming should be followed up with long-term acclimation studies, since the maximum cardiac performance of these three Antarctic species studied seem to be tolerant of temperatures in excess of predictions associated with global warming.
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".