Mitochondrial respiration capacity impacts gill tissue regeneration in Atlantic salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gill regeneration in fish varies inter- and intra-specifically. The latter may be associated with myriad factors including capacity of energy metabolism. This study investigated whether mitochondrial respiration capacity influences the degree of gill regeneration and features of mitochondria in regenerated tissue by feeding fish an experimental diet aimed at modulating mitochondrial efficiency. Atlantic salmon reared on standard and experimental diet were subjected to 50% filament resection on a subset of filaments on the ventral and dorsal regions of the first gill arch. Mitochondrial respiration and citrate synthase activity (CSA) were measured in the resected tips of filaments (week-0) and then in the regenerated tissue at 20 weeks post-resection (week-20). The degree of filament regeneration was measured at week-20. The experimental diet reduced CSA and respiratory control ratio (RCR), and increased proton leak at week-0, which was associated with a 30% reduction in tissue regeneration compared with fish on standard diet. While CSA increased in the regenerated tissue of experimental diet fish, there was a decline in other metrics of mitochondrial respiration including state 3, proton leak and RCR irrespective of diet. Overall, mitochondrial respiration efficiency at week-0 was positively correlated with the degree of subsequent gill tissue regeneration. Additionally, state 3 respiration and proton leak at week-20 were positively correlated with tissue regeneration, whereas CSA exhibited a negative relationship. Our results indicate that the capacity of mitochondrial respiration may at least partially explain the inter-individual variation in tissue regeneration, but mitochondrial function in the regenerating tissue may be limited.
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".