Applications of metabolomics and proteomics to the mdx mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy: lessons from downstream of the transcriptome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional genomic studies are dominated by transcriptomic approaches, in part reflecting the vast amount of information that can be obtained, the ability to amplify mRNA and the availability of commercially standardized functional genomic DNA microarrays and related techniques. This can be contrasted with proteomics, metabolomics and metabolic flux analysis (fluxomics), which have all been much slower in development, despite these techniques each providing a unique viewpoint of what is happening in the overall biological system. Here, we give an overview of developments in these fields 'downstream' of the transcriptome by considering the characterization of one particular, but widely used, mouse model of human disease. The mdx mouse is a model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and has been widely used to understand the progressive skeletal muscle wasting that accompanies DMD, and more recently the associated cardiomyopathy, as well as to unravel the roles of the other isoforms of dystrophin, such as those found in the brain. Studies using proteomics, metabolomics and fluxomics have characterized perturbations in calcium homeostasis in dystrophic skeletal muscle, provided an understanding of the role of dystrophin in skeletal muscle regeneration, and defined the changes in substrate energy metabolism in the working heart. More importantly, they all point to perturbations in proteins, metabolites and metabolic fluxes reflecting mitochondrial energetic alterations, even in the early stage of the dystrophic pathology. Philosophically, these studies also illustrate an important lesson relevant to both functional genomics and the mouse phenotyping in that the knowledge generated has advanced our understanding of cell biology and physiological organization as much as it has advanced our understanding of the 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".