Breathing with fins: do the pectoral fins of larval fishes play a respiratory role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Convective water flow across respiratory epithelia in water-breathing organisms maintains transcutaneous oxygen (O2) partial pressure (Po2) gradients that drive O2uptake. Following hatch, larval fishes lack a developed gill and the skin is the dominant site of gas transfer, yet few studies have addressed the contribution of convective water flow to cutaneous O2uptake in larvae. We hypothesized that the pectoral fins, which can generate water flow across the skin in larvae, promote transcutaneous O2transfer and thus aid in O2uptake. In zebrafish ( Danio rerio), the frequency of pectoral fin movements increased in response to hypoxia at 4 days postfertilization (dpf), but the response was blunted by 15 dpf, when the gills become the dominant site of O2uptake, and was absent by 21 dpf. In rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss), Po2measured at the skin surface of ventilating larvae was lower when the pectoral fins had been surgically removed, directly demonstrating that fins contribute to convective flow that dissipates cutaneous Po2boundary layers. Lack of pectoral fins compromised whole animal O2consumption in trout during hypoxia, but this effect was absent in zebrafish. Overall, our findings support a respiratory role of the pectoral fins in rainbow trout, but their involvement in zebrafish remains equivocal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".