Beneficial Effects of Cod Protein on Inflammatory Cell Accumulation in Rat Skeletal Muscle after Injury Are Driven by Its High Levels of Arginine, Glycine, Taurine and Lysine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have shown that feeding cod protein, which is rich in anti-inflammatory arginine, glycine, and taurine, may beneficially modulate the inflammatory response during recovery following skeletal muscle injury; however it is unknown if these amino acids are responsible for this effect. This study was designed to assess whether supplementing casein with an amino acid mixture composed of arginine, glycine, taurine and lysine, matching their respective levels in cod protein, may account for the anti-inflammatory effect of cod protein. Male Wistar rats were fed isoenergetic diets containing either casein, cod protein, or casein supplemented with L-arginine (0.45%), glycine (0.43%), L-taurine (0.17%) and L-lysine (0.44%) (casein+). After 21 days of ad libitum feeding, one tibialis anterior muscle was injured with 200 µl bupivacaine while the saline-injected contra-lateral tibialis anterior was served as sham. Cod protein and casein+ similarly modulated the inflammation as they decreased COX-2 level at day 2 post-injury (cod protein, p=0.014; casein+, p=0.029) and ED1(+) macrophage density at days 2 (cod protein, p=0.012; casein+, p<0.0001), 5 (cod protein, p=0.001; casein+, p<0.0001) and 14 (cod protein, p<0.0001; casein+, p<0.0001) post-injury, and increased ED2(+) macrophage density at days 5 (cod protein, p<0.0001; casein+, p=0.006), 14 (cod protein, p=0.001; casein+, p<0.002) and 28 (cod protein, p<0.009; casein+, p<0.005) post-injury compared with casein. Furthermore, cod protein up-regulated (p=0.037) whereas casein+ tended to up-regulate (p=0.062) myogenin expression at day 5 post-injury compared with casein. In the cod protein-fed group, these changes resulted in greater muscle mass at days 14 (p=0.002), and 28 (p=0.001) post-injury and larger myofiber cross-sectional area at day 28 post-injury compared with casein (p=0.012). No such effects were observed with casein+. These data indicate that anti-inflammatory actions of cod protein, contrary to its effect on muscle mass recovery, are driven by its high levels of arginine, glycine, taurine and lysine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".