Odor-evoked respiratory responses throughout development in sighted and blind mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Congenital blindness affects olfactory function depending on developmental stage. However, when studying the ontogeny of olfactory abilities, not all behaviors are expressed at every age making the longitudinal comparisons difficult. Odor-evoked respiratory responses, which are unlearned and do not require complex motor coordination, may serve as sensitive measures of olfactory abilities throughout ontogeny. Using a non-invasive measure of respiration in an olfactory perceptual paradigm, we assessed odor-evoked respiratory responses in a model of congenital blindness at 3 ages, infant, juvenile and adult, in the same mice and in both males and females. We demonstrated the differential outcome of two respiratory parameters (i.e. frequency and amplitude) in a mouse model of congenital blindness. We showed that blind mice have similar olfactory abilities than sighted mice throughout ontogeny but display enhanced sniffing frequency and amplitude, starting at the juvenile age for the latter one, that may help them better explore their environment. We also demonstrated that respiratory frequency is a robust index of age and of olfactory detection, habituation and discrimination at all ages. On the other side, respiratory amplitude does not provide a proxy of olfactory performance at all ages, however, it does highlight differences between sexes and phenotypes associated with visual deprivation. To conclude, our data highlight that respiratory parameters can be used as a complementary approach to assess olfactory performance throughout development and provide an index of olfactory plasticity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".