Can temperature-dependent changes in myocardial contractility explain why fish only increase heart rate when exposed to acute warming?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish increase heart rate (fH), not stroke volume (VS), when acutely warmed as a way to increase cardiac output (Q). To assess whether aspects of myocardial function may have some basis in determining temperature-dependent cardiac performance, we measured work and power (shortening, lengthening and net) in isolated segments of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ventricular muscle at the fish's acclimation temperature (14°C), and at 22°C, when subjected to increased rates of contraction (30-105 min-1, emulating increased fH) and strain amplitude (8-14%, mimicking increased VS). At 22°C, shortening power (indicative of Q) increased in proportion to fH, and the work required to re-lengthen (stretch) the myocardium (fill the heart) was largely independent of fH. In contrast, the increase in shortening power was less than proportional when strain was augmented, and lengthening work approximately doubled when strain was increased. Thus, the derived relationships between fH, strain and myocardial shortening power and lengthening work, suggest that increasing fH would be preferable as a mechanism to increase Q at high temperatures, or in fact may be an unavoidable response given constraints on muscle mechanics as temperatures rise. Interestingly, at 14°C, lengthening work increased substantially at higher fH, and the duration of lengthening (i.e. diastole) became severely constrained when fH was increased. These data suggest that myocardial contraction/twitch kinetics greatly constrain maximal fH at cool temperatures, and may underlie observations that fish elevate VS to an equal or greater extent than fH to meet demands for increased Q at lower temperatures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".