Metabolic cost of freeze-thaw and source of CO2 production in the freeze-tolerant cricket Gryllus veletis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeze-tolerant insects can survive the conversion of a substantial portion of their body water to ice. While the process of freezing induces active responses from some organisms, these responses appear absent from freeze-tolerant insects. Recovery from freezing likely requires energy expenditure to repair tissues and re-establish homeostasis, which should be evident as elevations in metabolic rate after thaw. We measured carbon dioxide (CO2) production in the spring field cricket (Gryllus veletis) as a proxy for metabolic rate during cooling, freezing and thawing and compared the metabolic costs associated with recovery from freezing and chilling. We hypothesized that freezing does not induce active responses, but that recovery from freeze-thaw is metabolically costly. We observed a burst of CO2release at the onset of freezing in all crickets that froze, including those killed by either cyanide or an insecticide (thiacloprid), implying that the source of this CO2was neither aerobic metabolism or a coordinated nervous system response. These results suggest that freezing does not induce active responses from G. veletis, but may liberate buffered CO2 from hemolymph. There was a transient ‘overshoot’ in CO2release during the first hour of recovery, and elevated metabolic rates at 24, 48 and 72 hours, in crickets that had been frozen compared to crickets that had been chilled (but not frozen). Thus, recovery from freeze-thaw and the repair of freeze-induced damage appears metabolically costly in G. veletis, and this cost persists for several days after thawing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".