Creatine loading elevates the intracellular phosphorylation potential and alters adaptive responses of rat fast-twitch muscle to chronic low-frequency stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that elevating the intracellular phosphorylation potential (IPP = [ATP]/[ADP]free) within rat fast-twitch tibialis anterior muscles by creatine (Cr) loading would prevent fast-to-slow fibre transitions induced by chronic low-frequency electrical stimulation (CLFS, 10 Hz, 12 h/day). Creatine-control and creatine-CLFS groups drank a solution of 1% Cr + 5% dextrose, ad libitum, for 10 days before and during 10 days of CLFS; dextrose-control and dextrose-CLFS groups drank 5% dextrose. Cr loading increased total Cr (P < 0.025), phosphocreatine (PCr) (P < 0.003), and the IPP (P < 0.0008) by 34%, 45%, and 64%, respectively. PCr and IPP were 46% (P < 0.002) and 76% (P < 0.02) greater in creatine-CLFS than in dextrose-CLFS. Higher IPP was confirmed by a 58% reduction in phospho-AMP-activated protein kinase α (Thr172) (P < 0.006). In dextrose-CLFS, myosin heavy chain (MyHC) I and IIa transcripts increased 32- and 38-fold (P < 0.006), respectively, whereas MyHC-IIb mRNA decreased by 75% (P < 0.03); the corresponding MyHC-I and MyHC-IIa protein contents increased by 2.0- (P < 0.03) and 2.7-fold (P < 0.05), respectively, and MyHC-IIb decreased by 30% (P < 0.03). In contrast, within creatine-CLFS, MyHC-I and MyHC-IIa mRNA were unchanged and MyHC-IIb mRNA decreased by 75% (P < 0.003); the corresponding MyHC isoform contents were not altered. Oxidative reference enzymes were similarly elevated (P < 0.01) in dextrose-CLFS and creatine-CLFS, but reciprocal reductions in glycolytic reference enzymes occurred only in dextrose-CLFS (P < 0.02). Preservation of the glycolytic potential and greater SERCA2 and parvalbumin contents in creatine-CLFS coincided with prolonged time to peak tension and half-rise time (P < 0.01). These results highlight the IPP as an important physiological regulator of muscle fibre plasticity and demonstrate that training-induced changes typically associated with improvements in muscular endurance or increased power output are not mutually exclusive in Cr-loaded muscles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".