MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Control of mitochondrial respiration in flight muscle of bar‐headed geese

2008· article· en· W3176452342 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham R. Scott, Jeff G. Richards, William K. Milsom

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirationRespirometryGooseBiologyAnimal scienceAnatomyEcologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether flight muscle metabolic capacity or mitochondrial regulation have evolved in the bar‐headed goose to facilitate flight at high altitude. Biopsies were collected from the pectoralis muscle of this species and several low altitude waterfowl species (greylag geese, barnacle geese, and mallard ducks), the muscle fibers were permeabilized, and their respiration was measured by high resolution respirometry. Respiratory capacities, namely maximum ADP‐stimulated respiration using single or multiple inputs to the electron transport system, as well as complex IV excess capacity, were similar between species. However, the kinetics of ADP stimulated respiration were different in bar‐headed geese than in low altitude waterfowl, due to a reduced ADP sensitivity (higher Km) under oxygen saturating conditions. The sensitivity of respiration to creatine was also enhanced in bar‐headed goose muscle. These data suggest that ATP supply and demand may be better coordinated in the flight muscle of bar‐headed geese, which should be adaptive for intense exercise in severe hypoxia. (Supported by NSERC of Canada)

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207