Arguments for gasocrine signaling

In cellular signaling, a cell can send specific signals to another cell with a clear intention. The sent signals are sensed by the receiving cell, triggering a cellular response. If these sender and receiver cells are in direct physical proximity, the signaling is labeled as paracrine. If these cells are far and the signal is transported, the signaling is labeled as endocrine. In this manuscript, as others have argued in the past, I also argue that gasotransmitters must not be excluded as endocrine signaling molecules. I argue that, like LEGO bricks that can be built, dismantled, and rebuilt into anything of the builder's imagination, gasotransmitters are also LEGO bricks of endocrine signaling. I argue that we must bend the rules of definitions in endocrine signaling to incorporate gasotransmitter-based endocrine signaling, which I call gasocrine signaling. If the reason that oxygen is not considered an endocrine molecule is based on the fact that it does not satisfy the definition of signal – ‘signal is something that passes from a sender to a receiver that carries a ‘specific’ message’, then I argue that the ‘message’ is simply ‘live’ or ‘die’, depending on whether the organism is aerobe or anaerobe, respectively. I argue that HIFα is the receptor for oxygen. Gasocrine signaling, I propose, is our Earth’s equivalent of Na’vi’s connection with the ecosystem of Pandora in the movie Avatar.