Use of Loss of Righting Reflex to Assess Susceptibility to Carbon Dioxide Gas in Three Mouse Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to CO2 gas is a common rodent euthanasia method. CO2 activates nociceptors in rats and is painful to humans at concentrations equal to or greater than 32.5% The concentration of CO2 at which rodents become unconsciousness is inadequately defined. We used loss of righting reflex (LORR) to identify the concentration at which CO2 caused loss of consciousness in C57Bl/6, CD1 and 129P3J mice (16 females and 16 males per strain). We used a custom built, rotating, motorized cylinder to determine LORR as CO2 concentrations were increased. Two LORR assessment methods were used: 1) a 1-Paw assessment in which the righting reflex was considered to be present if one or more paws contacted the cylinder after rotation into dorsal recumbency and 2) a 4-Paw assessment in which the righting reflex was considered to be present only if all 4 paws contacted the cylinder. LORR test data were analyzed with Probit regression and dose response curves were plotted. 1-Paw EC95 values (CO2 concentration at which LORR occurred for 95% of the population) were: C57Bl/6; 30.7%, CD1; 26.2%, 129P3J; 20.1%. The EC95 for C57Bl/6 was significantly higher than that of the 129P3J mice, with no significant differences between other strains. Four-Paw EC95 values were: C57Bl/6; 22.8%, CD1; 25.3%, 129P3J; 20.1%. Values for 129P3J mice were significantly lower than those of CD1 mice), with no significant difference between other strains. The EC95 varied significantly between 1-Paw and 4-Paw methods only for C57Bl/6 mice. These results suggest a potential for nociception and pain to occur in some individuals of some mouse strains during CO2 euthanasia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".