Role of Heme Oxygenase in the Protection Afforded Skeletal Muscle During Ischemic Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ischemic tolerance (IT) is known to improve resistance to ischemia/reperfusion (I/R)-induced injury; however, the mechanisms remain unknown. The authors hypothesized that induction of heme oxygenase (HO), a heat shock protein, would provide anti-inflammatory benefits during IT, thereby preventing leukocyte-derived I/R injury. METHODS: Male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to sham (n = 4), I/R (n = 9), preconditioning (PC)+I/R (n = 7), chromium mesoporphyrin, to inhibit HO (CrMP; n = 4), or PC+I/R+CrMP (n = 6) groups. PC consisted of 5 cycles of I/R, each lasting 10 min, induced by tightening a tourniquet placed above the greater trochantor of the hindlimb. Twenty-four hours later, the hindlimb underwent 2 h of no-flow ischemia followed by intravital microscopy during 90 min reperfusion to assess capillary perfusion (#/mm), tissue injury (ratio of ethidium bromide to bisbenzimide labeled cells/100 microm2), leukocyte rolling (Lr, #/1000 microm2), and adhesion (La, #/1000 microm2) in postcapillary venules of the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle. RESULTS: In the I/R group, Lr was significantly increased (7.1 +/- 0.4) compared to sham (3.1 +/- 0.4). PC+I/R increased Lr (10.8 +/- 0.72), which was further exacerbated by the removal of HO (14.2 +/- 1.3). La (7.8 +/- 2.0) was significantly increased compared to sham (2.4 +/- 0.9), while PC returned La back to sham levels (1.9 +/- 0.7). Removal of HO activity, via CrMP, had no significant effect on La (3.9 +/- 0.7). However, CrMP removed the protection to microvascular perfusion (I/R = 9.4 +/- 1.1, PC = 16.6 +/- 1.8, sham = 20.5 +/- 2.8, PC+CrMP+I/R = 12.3 +/- 2.3) and prevented protection from ischemia-induced tissue injury. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that HO is an important protective mechanism during IT in skeletal muscle, but such protection was by mechanisms other than altered leukocyte-endothelial cell interaction.
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".