Repeated Induction of Autophagy or Mitophagy Protects C2C12 Cells from Subsequent Apoptotic Insults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autophagy is a sub‐cellular degradation mechanism with critical roles in remodelling, defense, and protein/organelle quality control. Although recognized with pro‐death functions in certain instances, cells typically induce autophagy to mitigate stress as a means of cyto‐preservation. In fact, autophagy is suggested to contribute to the longevity benefits associated with various models of caloric restriction. However, limited knowledge exists regarding the importance and specific consequences of autophagy induction, particularly its potential ability to improve the cellular environment. In this study, we examined whether repeated bouts of autophagy or mitophagy could confer apoptotic‐resistance. Proliferating C2C12 cells were treated with HBSS or CCCP for 3 consecutive days to induce autophagy and mitophagy, respectively. Cells were allowed to recover for 24 hours, after which apoptotic stimuli were administered. Repeated HBSS and CCCP treatments each reduced (p<0.05) staurosporine‐induced activation of caspase‐3 and caspase‐9. Furthermore, in response to the Ca 2+ ionophore A23187, HBSS‐ and CCCP‐treated cells maintained higher (p<0.05) calcein AM fluorescence and JC‐1 red:green fluorescence ratios compared to untreated cells. Therefore, mitochondria from conditioned cells preserved their membrane potential and were protected from permeability transition pore development after encountering Ca 2+ stress. These results demonstrate that repeated induction of autophagy/mitophagy may have cyto‐protective effects, perhaps due to the development of more robust mitochondria.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".