Exposure to sub-optimal temperature during early development decreases hypoxia tolerance in juvenile <i>Fundulus heteroclitus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-protection occurs when exposure to one stressor confers heightened tolerance against a different stressor. Alternatively, exposure to one stressor could result in reduced tolerance against other stressors. Although cross-protection has been documented in a wide range of taxa at juvenile and adult life stages, whether early developmental exposure to a stressor confers cross-protection or reduced tolerance to other stressors later in life through developmental plasticity remains largely unexplored. In this study, we examined whether altered temperature during embryonic development results in developmental plasticity in upper thermal tolerance or hypoxia tolerance using a small topminnow, Fundulus heteroclitus, and examined potential underlying molecular mechanisms. We incubated embryos at one of two ecologically relevant temperatures (20°C or 26°C) until hatch. Once hatched, fish were raised at a common temperature of 20°C for 1 year, and tolerance was assessed in both juveniles (6 months) and early adults (1 year). Developmental temperature had no significant effect on thermal tolerance (CTmax) in juvenile fish, or on the transcript abundance of thermal tolerance-related genes (constitutive heat shock proteins, hsc70, hsp90b). In contrast, reduced developmental temperature decreased hypoxia tolerance but increased transcript levels of the hypoxia inducible factor hif1α in juvenile fish but the effects were less evident in older fish. Overall, we found no indication of developmental plasticity for thermal tolerance, but there was evidence of negative impacts of lower developmental temperature on hypoxia tolerance in juveniles associated with changes in gene expression, providing evidence of developmental plasticity across stressors and levels of organization.
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".