Phrenic Nerve and Carotid Body Responses to Hypoxia and CO <sub>2</sub> in Naked Mole Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naked mole‐rats (NMRs), which live in underground burrows, are tolerant to hypoxia. In the present study, we examined the efferent phrenic nerve and carotid body (CB) responses to hypoxia and CO 2 in NMRs and the results were compared with Bl6 mice. The phrenic nerve responses to 10% O 2 and 10% CO 2 for 3 min were examined in anesthetized animals. Stimulation of minute neural respiration (MNR = phrenic bursts/min × tidal phrenic amplitude) evoked by hypoxia was ~ 50% less, whereas by CO 2 was ~200% higher in NMRs as compared to Bl6 mice. The magnitude of CB sensory nerve excitation for a given level of hypoxia was comparable, whereas the CB response to CO 2 was ~100% higher in NMRs as compared with Bl6 mice. Morphological analysis of CB with anti‐chromogranin A (CGA, a synaptic vesicle marker) and anti‐tyrosine hydroxylase (TH; a glomus cell marker) antibodies showed a dispersed pattern of glomus cells in NMR CBs as compared with a clustered pattern in Bl6 CBs. These findings suggest that breathing and CB responses to hypoxia and CO 2 differ between NMR and Bl6 mice and these effects are associated with striking differences in CB morphology. Support or Funding Information Supported by NIH‐HLBI P01‐HL‐90554 This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".