Heat shock protein accumulation and heat shock transcription factor activation in rat skeletal muscle during compensatory hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the stress/heat shock protein (HSP) and heat shock factor activation response in overloaded (hypertrophied) plantaris muscles. METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 5 per time point) underwent unilateral removal of the left gastrocnemius muscle. After 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14 and 28 days, plantaris muscles were removed, weighted rapidly frozen in liquid nitrogen. Total protein content was determined and HSP 25 and HSP 72 contents were assessed by Western blotting. Heat shock transcription factor (HSF) activation was assessed by electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA). RESULTS: While plantaris muscle mass was significantly increased 3 days after the imposition of overload and remained elevated thereafter confirming muscle hypertrophy, muscle protein content was not increased until 7 days after the imposition of overload. HSP 72 content was significantly increased at 3 days, while HSP 25 content was not significantly increased until 7 days after synergistic muscle removal. HSF activation was detected at 1, 2 and 3 days of overload but undetectable thereafter. The addition of HSF1- and HSF2-specific antibodies to extracts prior to EMSA failed to supershift the HSF-heat shock element complex. CONCLUSION: The temporal pattern of both HSF activation and HSP expression in skeletal muscle undergoing hypertrophy suggests the increased level of the observed HSPs may be both a consequence of both the immediate stress of overload and the hypertrophic process. The inability of HSF1- and HSF2-specific antibodies to cause supershifts suggests the HSF detected during overload may not be HSF1 or HSF2.
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".