Artificial selection for high activity favors mighty mini-muscles in house mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 14 generations of selection for voluntary wheel running, mice from the four replicate selected lines ran, on average, twice as many revolutions per day as those from the four unselected control lines. To examine whether the selected lines followed distinct strategies in the correlated responses of the size and metabolic capacities of the hindlimb muscles, we examined mice from selected lines, housed for 8 wk in cages with access to running wheels that were either free to rotate ("wheel access" group) or locked ("sedentary"). Thirteen of twenty individuals in one selected line (line 6) and two of twenty in another (line 3) showed a marked reduction ( approximately 50%) in total hindlimb muscle mass, consistent with the previously described expression of a small-muscle phenotype. Individuals with these "mini-muscles" were not significantly smaller in total body mass compared with line-mates with normal-sized muscles. Access to free wheels did not affect the relative mass of the mini-muscles, but did result in typical mammalian training effects for mitochondrial enzyme activities. Individuals with mini-muscles showed a higher mass-specific muscle aerobic capacity as revealed by the maximal in vitro rates of citrate synthase and cytochrome c oxidase. Moreover, these mice showed the highest activities of hexokinase and carnitine palmitoyl transferase. Females with mini-muscles showed the highest levels of phosphofructokinase, and males with mini-muscles the highest levels of pyruvate dehydrogenase. As shown by total muscle enzyme contents, the increase in mass-specific aerobic capacity almost completely compensated for the reduction caused by the "loss" of muscle mass. Moreover, the mini-muscle mice exhibited the lowest contents of lactate dehydrogenase and glycogen phosphorylase. Interestingly, metabolic capacities of mini-muscled mice resemble those of muscles after endurance training. Overall, our results demonstrate that during selection for voluntary wheel running, distinct adaptive paths that differentially exploit the genetic variation in morphological and physiological traits have been followed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".