MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210908208 · doi:10.1242/jeb.243672

<i>Arapaima gigas</i> maintains gas exchange separation in severe aquatic hypoxia but does not suffer branchial oxygen loss

2022· article· en· W4210908208 on OpenAlexaff
Magnus Lerche Aaskov, Rasmus J. Jensen, Peter Vilhelm Skov, Chris M. Wood, Tobias Wang, Hans Malte, Mark Bayley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDanmarks Frie ForskningsfondNatur og Univers, Det Frie Forskningsråd
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)OxygenFisheryBiologyAnatomyChemistryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most air-reliant obligate air-breathing fish is the South American Arapaima gigas, with substantially reduced gills impeding gas diffusion, thought to be a result of recurring aquatic hypoxia in its habitat. In normoxic water, A. gigas is reported to satisfy 70-80% of its O2 requirement from the air while excreting 60-90% of its CO2 to the water. If this pattern of gas exchange were to continue in severely hypoxic water, O2 loss at the gills would be expected. We hypothesized therefore that partitioning of CO2 would shift to the air phase in severe aquatic hypoxia, eliminating the risk of branchial O2 loss. By adapting a respirometer designed to measure aquatic ṀO2/ṀCO2, we were able to run intermittent closed respirometry on both water and air phase for both of these gasses as well as sample water for N-waste measurements (ammonia-N, urea-N) so as to calculate metabolic fuel utilization. In contrast to our prediction, we found that partitioning of CO2 excretion changed little between normoxia and severe hypoxia (83% versus 77% aquatic excretion, respectively) and at the same time there was no evidence of branchial O2 loss in hypoxia. This indicates that A. gigas can utilize distinct transfer pathways for O2 and CO2. Routine and standard ṀO2, N-waste excretion and metabolic fuel utilization did not change with water oxygenation. Metabolism was fuelled mostly by protein oxidation (53%), while carbohydrates and lipids accounted for 27% and 20%, respectively.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→