MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hypoxia Inducible Factor is partially involved in mitochondrial and metabolic responses to hypoxia in rats DEMAREST Maud <sup>1</sup> , MARCOUILLER François <sup>1</sup> , SOLIZ Jorge <sup>1</sup> , JOSEPH Vincent <sup>1</sup> <sup>1</sup> Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie, Université Laval, Québec

2022· article· en· W4225398550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maud Demarest, François Marcouiller, Jorge Soliz, Vincent Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)Hypoxic ventilatory responseBiologyMetabolismHomeostasisOxygenRespirationInternal medicineEndocrinologyMitochondrionEffects of high altitude on humansChemistryCell biologyAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High altitude environments present many constraints for mammals, the most well‐known being the lack of oxygen or hypoxia. Nevertheless, several ecological reports show that mice ( Mus musculus ) unlike rats ( Rattus norvegicus ) are present above 4000m 1 although they are not native to this environment. The associated general hypothesis is that mice are pre‐adapted to high altitude environments. There are also differences in mitochondrial 2 , ventilatory and metabolic 3 responses to hypoxia between these two species. One of the mechanisms involved in many of these responses is the hypoxia‐inducible factor HIF, which helps maintain the cell's oxygen homeostasis. What precisely are the different roles of HIF in mitochondrial, ventilatory, and metabolic responses to hypoxia in rats and mice, two species more or less adapted to high‐altitude environments? Does the pharmacological stabilization of HIF in normoxia mimic the responses observed in hypoxia? Conversely, does blocking HIF in hypoxia suppress these same responses? We measured the ventilatory and metabolic responses (whole body plethysmography) of rats (SD) and mice (FVB) under the following conditions: (i) 6h normoxia (21% O2); (ii) 6h hypoxia (10% O2); (iii) 6h normoxia with injection of deferoxamine, a HIF stabilizer (200mg/kg) and (iv) 6h hypoxia with injection of 2‐methoxyestradiol, a HIF blocker (5mg/kg). In addition, we evaluated mitochondrial respiration in homogenates of liver and cerebral cortex, two organs sensitive to hypoxia. Our preliminary results show that hypoxia increases ventilation and reduces metabolism and complex I efficiency in the cerebral cortex. Furthermore, pharmacological stabilization of HIF has no effect on the ventilatory response, but seems to mimic some mitochondrial and metabolic responses to hypoxia, whereas blocking HIF has no effect on these same responses. If in mice blocking HIF in hypoxia reduces the amplitude of the observed responses, our data will demonstrate fundamental differences in the mechanisms of responses to hypoxia between these two species that would strongly support our general hypothesis.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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