Respiratory plasticity during acclimation to hypoxia and following a recovery in normoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenotypic plasticity manifested after acclimatization is a very important source of biological variability among fish species. We hypothesized that hypoxic acclimation, besides potentially generating a temporary hypoxic respiratory phenotype, would also manifest as a continued benefit after reacclimation to normoxia. Hence, we holistically characterized the respiratory phenotype of European sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax (Linnaeus, 1758)) acclimated to normoxia with or without prior acclimation to hypoxia. Compared with the original normoxic phenotype, prior acclimation to hypoxia and return to normoxia produced a 27% higher absolute aerobic scope (AAS), a 24% higher citrate synthase activity in red muscle, and a 28% lower excess post exercise O2 consumption. Additional testing of hypoxia-acclimated fish under normoxia explored the specific effects of hypoxic acclimation. The hypoxic phenotype, when compared with the original normoxic phenotype, had a lower standard metabolic rate, a better hypoxia performance, and a lower minimum PO2 for supporting 50% AAS. Thus, respiratory plasticity allows sea bass to improve its maximum aerobic capacity after returning to normoxia from hypoxic acclimation, a potential benefit from exploiting a hypoxic habitat. Given this respiratory malleability, general predictions for marine fish exploiting a more hypoxic future should better consider respiratory plasticity and prolonged effects of hypoxic exposures.
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) | 0.001 | 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".