Stimulation of Respiratory Motor Output and Ventilation in a Murine Model of Pompe Disease by Ampakines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pompe disease results from a mutation in the acid α-glucosidase gene leading to lysosomal glycogen accumulation. Respiratory insufficiency is common, and the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment, enzyme replacement, has limited effectiveness. Ampakines are drugs that enhance α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid receptor responses and can increase respiratory motor drive. Recent work indicates that respiratory motor drive can be blunted in Pompe disease, and thus pharmacologic stimulation of breathing may be beneficial. Using a murine Pompe model with the most severe clinical genotype (the Gaa(-/-) mouse), our primary objective was to test the hypothesis that ampakines can stimulate respiratory motor output and increase ventilation. Our second objective was to confirm that neuropathology was present in Pompe mouse medullary respiratory control neurons. The impact of ampakine CX717 on breathing was determined via phrenic and hypoglossal nerve recordings in anesthetized mice and whole-body plethysmography in unanesthetized mice. The medulla was examined using standard histological methods coupled with immunochemical markers of respiratory control neurons. Ampakine CX717 robustly increased phrenic and hypoglossal inspiratory bursting and reduced respiratory cycle variability in anesthetized Pompe mice, and it increased inspiratory tidal volume in unanesthetized Pompe mice. CX717 did not significantly alter these variables in wild-type mice. Medullary respiratory neurons showed extensive histopathology in Pompe mice. Ampakines stimulate respiratory neuromotor output and ventilation in Pompe mice, and therefore they have potential as an adjunctive therapy in Pompe disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".