Akt Deficiency Attenuates Muscle Size and Function but Not the Response to ActRIIB Inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Akt is a critical mediator of developmental skeletal muscle growth. Treatment with a soluble ActRIIB fusion protein (ActRIIB-mFc) increases skeletal muscle mass and strength by inhibiting myostatin and related peptides. Recent in vitro studies have suggested that Akt signaling is necessary for the ability of ActRIIB inhibition to induce muscle hypertrophy. Thus, we hypothesized that mice deficient in either Akt1 or Akt2 would not respond to in vivo inhibition of ActRIIB with ActRIIB-mFc treatment. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We analyzed body composition and muscle parameters in wild-type C57BL/6J and Akt1 and Akt2 knockout mice, and compared the responses to blockade of ActRIIB signaling via ActRIIB-mFc treatment. Mice lacking Akt1 or Akt2 had reduced muscle mass, grip strength and contractile force. However, deficiency of Akt1 or Akt2 did not prevent the ability of ActRIIB-mFc treatment to induce muscle hypertrophy, or increase grip strength and contractile force. Akt1 and Akt2 deficient mice responded similarly as wild type mice to ActRIIB-mFc treatment by increasing fiber size. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Akt1 and Akt2 are important for the regulation of skeletal muscle mass and function. However, these Akt isoforms are not essential for the ability of ActRIIB inhibition to regulate muscle size, fiber type, strength or contractile force.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".