Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 395

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CO2, brainstem chemoreceptors and breathing

Open access
Nattie, E·1999·Progress in Neurobiology

Abstract

The regulation of breathing relies upon chemical feedback concerning the levels of CO2 and O2. The carotid bodies, which detect O2, provide tonic excitation to brainstem respiratory neurons under normal conditions and dramatic excitation if O2 levels fall. Feedback for CO2 involves the carotid body and receptors in the brainstem, central chemoreceptors. Small increases in CO2 produce large increases in breathing. Decreases in CO2 below normal can, in sleep and anesthesia, decrease breathing, even to apnea. Central chemoreceptors, once thought localized to the surface of the ventral medulla, are likely distributed more widely with sites presently identified in the: (1) ventrolateral medulla; (2) nucleus of the solitary tract; (3) ventral respiratory group; (4) locus ceruleus; (5) caudal medullary raphé; and (6) fastigial nucleus of the cerebellum. Why so many chemoreceptor sites? Hypotheses, some with supporting data, include the following. Geographical specificity; all regions of the brainstem with respiratory neurons contain chemoreceptors. Stimulus intensity; some sites operate in the physiological range of CO2 values, others only with more extreme changes. Stimulus specificity; CO2 or pH may be sensed by multiple mechanisms. Temporal specificity; some sites respond more quickly to changes on blood or brain CO2 or pH. Syncytium; chemosensitive neurons may be connected via low resistance, gap junctions. Arousal state: sites may vary in effectiveness and importance dependent on state of arousal. Overall, as judged by experiments of nature, and in the laboratory, central chemoreceptors are critical for adequate breathing in sleep, but other aspects of the control system can maintain breathing in wakefulness.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0301-0082(99)00008-8

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 79 references

Cited by

See all 395

Metadata

Authors
Nattie, E.
Venue
Progress in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-11
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
299-331
ISSN
0301-0082 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976132208
Cited by
395
References
79
FWCI
8.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CO2, brainstem chemoreceptors and breathing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0301-0082(99)00008-8
The paper
Nattie, E. (1999). CO2, brainstem chemoreceptors and breathing. Progress in Neurobiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0082(99)00008-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.