The Effect of Nutritional Supplements on Muscle-Derived Stem Cells in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postnatal muscle stem cells, recognized as myogenic satellite cells, were isolated from sheep skeletal muscle and used in these experiments. Forty-one different metabolic compounds that are commonly found in commercially-available oral supplements were exposed to primary muscle stem cell cultures, in an effort to ascertain whether any one compound could alter satellite cell proliferation or differentiation (a first step towards elucidating the metabolomics or nutrigenomics of these stem cells). These compounds included energetic moieties, amino acid analogs, fatty acids and analogs including different forms of conjugated linoleic acid, minerals and mineral conjugates, insect hormones, caffeine, plant extracts, and extracts from over-the-counter supplements, and were obtained by key manufacturers in a form that would be commercially available. The compounds were sterilized and then exposed to myogenic satellite cell cultures at different levels (ranging from toxic to physiologic) to ascertain if there would be an effect. The results suggested that exposure of satellite cells to only a few compounds resulted in any measurable effect(s). Ten compounds elicited increases in proliferation, and four compounds promoted increases in differentiation. These results suggest avenues for the exploration of enhancing muscle stem cell activity of interest for muscle wasting disorders, sarcopenia of aging and physical performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".