The control of breathing in fishes – historical perspectives and the path ahead
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of breathing in fishes has featured prominently in Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB), particularly during the latter half of the past century. Indeed, many of the seminal discoveries in this important sub-field of comparative respiratory physiology were reported first in JEB. The period spanning 1960-1990 (the 'golden age of comparative respiratory physiology') witnessed intense innovation in the development of methods to study the control of breathing. Many of the guiding principles of piscine ventilatory control originated during this period, including our understanding of the dominance of O2 as the driver of ventilation in fish. However, a critical issue - the identity of the peripheral O2 chemoreceptors - remained unanswered until methods for cell isolation, culture and patch-clamp recording established that gill neuroepithelial cells (NECs) respond to hypoxia in vitro. Yet, the role of the NECs and other putative peripheral or central chemoreceptors in the control of ventilation in vivo remains poorly understood. Further progress will be driven by the implementation of genetic tools, most of which can be used in zebrafish (Danio rerio). These tools include CRISPR/Cas9 for selective gene knockout, and Tol2 systems for transgenesis, the latter of which enables optogenetic stimulation of cellular pathways, cellular ablation and in vivo cell-specific biosensing. Using these methods, the next period of discovery will see the identification of the peripheral sensory pathways that initiate ventilatory responses, and will elucidate the nature of their integration within the central nervous system and their link to the efferent motor neurons that control breathing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".