What causes cardiac mitochondrial failure at high environmental temperatures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a mechanism accounting for hyperthermic death at critical temperatures remains elusive, the mitochondria of crucial active excitable tissues (i.e. heart and brain) may well be key to this process. Mitochondria produce ∼90% of the ATP required by cells to maintain cellular integrity and function. They also integrate into biosynthetic pathways that support metabolism as a whole, allow communication within the cell, and regulate cellular health and death pathways. We have previously shown that cardiac and brain mitochondria demonstrate decreases in the efficiency of, and absolute capacity for ATP synthesis as temperatures rise, until ultimately there is too little ATP to support cellular demands, and organ failure follows. Importantly, substantial decreases in ATP synthesis occur at temperatures immediately below the temperature of heart failure, and this suggests a causal role of mitochondria in hyperthermic death. However, what causes mitochondria to fail? Here, we consider the answers to this question. Mitochondrial dysfunction at high temperature has classically been attributed to elevated leak respiration suspected to result from increased movement of protons (H+) through the inner mitochondrial membrane (IMM), thereby bypassing the ATP synthases. In this Commentary, we introduce some alternative explanations for elevated leak respiration. We first consider respiratory complex I and then propose that a loss of IMM structure occurs as temperatures rise. The loss of the cristae folds of the IMM may affect the efficiency of H+ transport, increasing H+ conductance either through the IMM or into the bulk water phases of mitochondria. In either case, O2 consumption increases while ATP synthesis decreases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".