MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Spinal Oxygen Sensors (SOS): A Novel Oxygen Sensing Mechanism Involved in Cardiovascular Responses to Hypoxia

2020· article· en· W3016710165 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicole O. Barioni, Fatemeh Derakhshan, Luana Tenorio Lopes, Negar Heidari, Manisha Bharadia, Arijit Roy, Mufaddal I. Baghdadwala, Fiona B. McDonald, Erika Scheibli, Michael B. Harris, Mathias Dutschmann, Hiroshi Onimaru, Yasumasa Okada, Richard J. A. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)Carotid bodyOxygenCardiorespiratory fitnessSpinal cordChemistryAnesthesiaMedicineNeuroscienceInternal medicineBiologyElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In healthy individuals, when blood oxygenation decreases, cardiorespiratory reflexes are triggered in an attempt to restore oxygen supply to vital organs. The carotid bodies are the primary respiratory oxygen chemoreceptors but cardiovascular responses to hypoxia such as increase in heart rate and blood pressure persist in their absence, suggesting an additional high‐fidelity oxygen sensor. Previously we discovered that spinal sympathetic preganglionic neurons (SPN), are exquisitely sensitive to oxygen; here we investigate the oxygen sensing mechanisms and test the role of these spinal oxygen sensors (SOS) in cardiorespiratory responses to asphyxia‐like stimuli. OBJECTIVE To study the cellular oxygen sensing mechanism and contribution of the SOS in responses to cardiorespiratory crisis. METHODS We investigated the cellular mechanism of oxygen sensing in artificially‐perfused ( in situ ) and slice ( in vitro ) thoracic spinal cord preparations, recording sympathetic nerve root and single cell responses to hypoxia during pharmacological interrogation. To determine if the SOS are involved in cardiorespiratory responses to asphyxia, we also used an in situ rat spinal cord – carotid body ‐ brainstem preparation in which each oxygen sensitive compartment is separately perfused while recording phrenic (respiratory) and splanchnic (sympathetic) nerve activity. RESULTS Our data suggest the SOS use a novel oxygen sensing mechanism. This mechanism involves two interacting NADPH and oxygen‐dependent enzymes: Neuronal Nitric Oxide Synthase (NOS1) and NADPH oxidase (NOX2). NOS1 is expressed in surprising abundance in the SOS and is oxygen sensitive across the entire physiological range. Hence, in the presence of oxygen, NOS1 is likely to utilize most of the available NADPH in the cell. When oxygenation falls during hypoxia, NOS1 activity is reduced, increasing NADPH availability for NOX2. NOX2 produces Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) which in turn, activate ROS‐dependent internal Ca 2+ stores and/or Ca 2+ channels leading to increased intracellular Ca 2+ , neuronal firing and, consequently, SOS responses to hypoxia. Functionally, during hypoxia, the SOS enhance sympathetic and breathing activity, while shortening apnea and gasping towards recovery, and are capable of triggering brief periods of sympathetic and respiratory‐like activity in the brainstem’s absence. CONCLUSIONS The results provide critical new knowledge required to unlock the cellular mechanisms involved in how the body mounts emergency responses to conditions that involve chronic and acute hypoxia. Support or Funding Information University of Calgary Eyes High; Hotchkiss Brain Institute; Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute; Alberta Innovates Health Solutions; MITACS Globalink; Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→