Discontinuous gas exchange in Madagascar hissing cockroaches is not a consequence of hysteresis around a fixed <i>P</i>CO2 threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been hypothesised that insects display discontinuous gas-exchange cycles (DGCs) as a result of hysteresis in their ventilatory control, where CO2-sensitive respiratory chemoreceptors respond to changes in haemolymph PCO2 only after some delay. If correct, DGCs would be a manifestation of an unstable feedback loop between chemoreceptors and ventilation, causing PCO2 to oscillate around some fixed threshold value: PCO2 above this ventilatory threshold would stimulate excessive hyperventilation, driving PCO2 below the threshold and causing a subsequent apnoea. This hypothesis was tested by implanting micro-optodes into the haemocoel of Madagascar hissing cockroaches and measuring haemolymph PO2 and PCO2 simultaneously during continuous and discontinuous gas exchange. The mean haemolymph PCO2 of 1.9 kPa measured during continuous gas exchange was assumed to represent the threshold level stimulating ventilation, and this was compared with PCO2 levels recorded during DGCs elicited by decapitation. Cockroaches were also exposed to hypoxic (PO2 10 kPa) and hypercapnic (PCO2 2 kPa) gas mixtures to manipulate haemolymph PO2 and PCO2. Decapitated cockroaches maintained DGCs even when their haemolymph PCO2 was forced above or below the putative ∼2 kPa ventilation threshold, demonstrating that the characteristic oscillation between apnoea and gas exchange is not driven by a lag between changing haemolymph PCO2 and a PCO2 chemoreceptor with a fixed ventilatory threshold. However, it was observed that the gas exchange periods within the DGC were altered to enhance O2 uptake and CO2 release during hypoxia and hypercapnia exposure. This indicates that while respiratory chemoreceptors do modulate ventilatory activity in response to haemolymph gas levels, their role in initiating or terminating the gas exchange periods within the DGC remains unclear.
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) | 0.000 | 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".