Quantitative assessment of anaplerosis from propionate in pig heart in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal cardiac metabolism requires continuous replenishment (anaplerosis) of catalytic intermediates of the citric acid cycle. Little is known about the quantitative aspects of propionate as a substrate of in vivo anaplerosis; therefore, we measured the rate of propionate entry into the citric acid cycle in hearts of anesthetized pigs. [U-(13)C(3)]propionate (0.25 mM) was infused in a coronary artery branch for 1 h via an extracorporeal perfusion circuit, and cardiac biopsies were analyzed for the mass isotopomer distribution of citric acid cycle intermediates. Infusion of propionate did not affect myocardial oxygen consumption, heart rate, or contractile function. In the infused territory, propionate infusion did not affect uptake of glucose and lactate but decreased free fatty acid uptake by one-half (P < 0.05). Propionate extraction and uptake were 57.4 +/- 3.3% and 0.078 +/- 0.009 micromol x min(-1) x g(-1). Anaplerosis from propionate, calculated from the mass isotopomer distribution of succinate, accounted for 8.9 +/- 1.3% of the citric acid cycle flux. Propioylcarnitine release accounted for only 0.033 +/- 0.002% of propionate uptake. Methylcitrate did not accumulate. Thus administration of a low concentration of propionate appears to be a convenient and safe way to boost anaplerosis in the heart.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".