Aerobic conditioning in patients with mitochondrial myopathies: Physiological, biochemical, and genetic effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerobic training has been shown to increase work and oxidative capacity in patients with mitochondrial myopathies, but the mechanisms underlying improvement are not known. We evaluated physiological (cycle exercise, 31P-MRS), biochemical (enzyme levels), and genetic (proportion of mutant/wild-type genomes) responses to 14 weeks of bicycle exercise training in 10 patients with heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations. Training increased peak work and oxidative capacities (20-30%), systemic arteriovenous O2 difference (20%), and 31P-MRS indices of metabolic recovery (35%), consistent with enhanced muscle oxidative phosphorylation. Mitochondrial volume in vastus lateralis biopsies increased significantly (50%) and increases in deficient respiratory chain enzymes were found in patients with Complex I (36%) and Complex IV (25%) defects, whereas decreases occurred in 2 patients with Complex III defects (approximately 20%). These results suggest that the cellular basis of improved oxygen utilization is related to training-induced mitochondrial proliferation likely resulting in increased levels of functional, wild-type mtDNA. However, genetic analysis indicated the proportion of wild-type mtDNA was unchanged (3/9) or fell (6/9), suggesting a trend toward preferential proliferation of mutant genomes. The long-term implications of training-induced increases in mutant relative to wild-type mtDNA, despite positive physiological and biochemical findings, need to be assessed before aerobic training can be proposed as a general treatment option.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".