Oxidative stress and mitochondrial responses to stress exposure suggest that king penguins are naturally equipped to resist stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to unpredictable environmental stressors could influence animal health and fitness by inducing oxidative stress, potentially through downstream effects of glucocorticoid stress hormones (e.g. corticosterone) on mitochondrial function. Yet, it remains unclear whether species that have evolved in stochastic and challenging environments may present adaptations to alleviate the effects of stress exposure on oxidative stress. We tested this hypothesis in wild king penguins by investigating mitochondrial and oxidative stress responses to acute restraint-stress, and their relationships with baseline (potentially mirroring exposure to chronic stress) and stress-induced increase in corticosterone levels. Acute restraint-stress did not significantly influence mitochondrial function. However, acute restraint-stress led to a significant increase in endogenous antioxidant defences, while oxidative damage levels were mostly not affected or even decreased. High baseline corticosterone levels were associated with an up-regulation of the glutathione antioxidant system and a decrease in mitochondrial efficiency. Both processes might contribute to prevent oxidative damage, potentially explaining the negative relationship observed between baseline corticosterone and plasma oxidative damage to proteins. While stress exposure can represent an oxidative challenge for animals, protective mechanisms like up-regulating antioxidant defences and decreasing mitochondrial efficiency seem to occur in king penguins, allowing them to cope with their stochastic and challenging environment.
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) | 0.002 | 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".