Reduced mitochondrial respiration and improved coupling in infarcted heart following stem cell therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To determine the changes in mitochondria following stem cell therapy in the infarcted heart. Methods C57BL/6J mice were randomly divided into three treatment groups, SHAM (n=8), MI (myocardial infarction)(n=9) and MI‐STEM (n=8) receiving direct myocardial injection of mesenchymal stem cells. Echocardiography was performed at baseline, 1 and 3 wk post‐infarct. Mitochondrial respiration (pmol/s*mgww/IUCS) in permeabilized fibers bordering the infarct was determined at 4wk following treatment. State 2 (absence of ADP) respiration, state 3 (ADP‐stimulated) respiration and state 4 respiration were examined. Citrate synthase activity (CS) was determined. Results MI‐STEM state 2 was lower than the MI and SHAM groups (20.98 vs. 29.46 and 32.45). State 3 was lower in the MI and MI‐STEM groups compared to the SHAM (77.01 and 68.46 vs. 97.18). Respiratory Control Ratio (RCR) was higher in the MI‐STEM compared to MI group (3.37 vs. 2.71) and state 4 was lower in the MI‐STEM compared to the SHAM group (67.93 vs. 96.23). Conclusion Cell therapy does not prevent declines in state 3 respiration, however, the higher RCR and lower state 4 respiration suggests stem cell treatment reduces futile respiration and increases respiration efficiency. These findings show cell therapy to improve cardiac function by reducing the energetic mismatch between supply and demand following a MI. Research supported provided by CIHR.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".