Physiological responses to acute warming at the agitation temperature in a temperate shark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal tolerance and associated mechanisms are often tested via the critical thermal maximum (CTmax). The agitation temperature is a recently described thermal limit in fishes that has received little mechanistic evaluation. The present study used a temperate elasmobranch fish to test the hypothesis that this thermal tolerance trait is partially set by the onset of declining cardiorespiratory performance and the cellular stress response. Pacific spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) were screened for cardiorespiratory and whole-organism thermal limits to test for associations between thermal performance and tolerance. Then, biochemical markers of secondary stress, aerobic and anaerobic enzyme activities, and molecular markers of cellular stress were determined for various tissues at the agitation temperature and secondary stress markers were determined at CTmax. In dogfish, the agitation temperature was characterised by increased turning activity within experimental chambers and was equal to the temperature at which dogfish exhibited maximum heart rate. Citrate synthase activity increased at the agitation temperature in white muscle relative to unmanipulated dogfish. Furthermore, lactate dehydrogenase activity and accumulated lactate in the plasma and muscle were not affected by acute warming. Cellular stress was apparent in hypothalamus, gill filament and ventricle, denoted by elevated transcript abundance of the stress response gene hsp70 but not the oxygen homeostasis gene hif1α. Conversely, CTmax was characterised by metabolic acidosis driven by anaerobic lactate production, signifying an increased reliance on anaerobic metabolism between the agitation temperature and CTmax. Together, these data provide partial support for our hypothesis, in that cellular stress, but not declining thermal performance, occurred at the agitation temperature.
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".