Origins of interspecies variation in mammalian muscle metabolic enzymes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do the transcriptional mechanisms that control an individual's mitochondrial content, PGC1α (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1α) and NRF1 (nuclear respiratory factor-1), also cause differences between species? We explored the determinants of cytochrome c oxidase (COX) activities in muscles from 12 rodents differing 1,000-fold in mass. Hindlimb muscles differed in scaling patterns from isometric (soleus, gastrocnemius) to allometric (tibialis anterior, scaling coefficient = -0.16). Consideration of myonuclear domain reduced the differences within species, but interspecies differences remained. For tibialis anterior, there was no significant scaling relationship in mRNA/g for COX4-1, PGC1α, or NRF1, yet COX4-1 mRNA/g was a good predictor of COX activity (r(2) = 0.55), PGC1α and NRF1 mRNA correlated with each other (r(2) = 0.42), and both could predict COX4-1 mRNA (r(2) = 0.48 and 0.52) and COX activity (r(2) = 0.55 and 0.49). This paradox was resolved by multivariate analysis, which explained 90% of interspecies variation, about equally partitioned between mass effects and PGC1α (or NRF1) mRNA levels, independent of mass. To explore the determinants of PGC1α mRNA, we analyzed 52 mammalian PGC1α proximal promoters and found no size dependence in regulatory element distribution. Likewise, the activity of PGC1α promoter reporter genes from 30 mammals showed no significant relationship with body mass. Collectively, these studies suggest that not all muscles scale equivalently, but for those that show allometric scaling, transcriptional regulation of the master regulators, PGC1α and NRF1, does not account for scaling patterns, though it does contribute to interspecies differences in COX activities independent of mass.
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".