The unfolded protein response is triggered following a single, unaccustomed resistance-exercise bout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress results from an imbalance between the abundance of synthesized proteins and the folding capacity of the ER. In response, the unfolded protein response (UPR) attempts to restore ER function by attenuating protein synthesis and inducing chaperone expression. Resistance exercise (RE) stimulates protein synthesis; however, a postexercise accumulation of unfolded proteins may activate the UPR. Aging may impair protein folding, and the accumulation of oxidized and misfolded proteins may stimulate the UPR at rest in aged muscle. Eighteen younger (n = 9; 21 ± 3 yr) and older (n = 9; 70 ± 4 yr) untrained men completed a single, unilateral bout of RE using the knee extensors (four sets of 10 repetitions at 75% of one repetition maximum on the leg press and leg extension) to determine whether the UPR is increased in resting, aged muscle and whether RE stimulates the UPR. Muscle biopsies were taken from the nonexercised and exercised vastus lateralis at 3, 24, and 48 h postexercise. Age did not affect any of the proteins and transcripts related to the UPR. Glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78) and protein kinase R-like ER protein kinase (PERK) proteins were increased at 48 h postexercise, whereas inositol-requiring enzyme 1 alpha (IRE1α) was elevated at 24 h and 48 h. Despite elevated protein, GRP78 and PERK mRNA was unchanged; however, IRE1α mRNA was increased at 24 h postexercise. Activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) mRNA increased at 24 h and 48 h, whereas ATF4, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein homologous protein (CHOP), and growth arrest and DNA damage protein 34 mRNA were unchanged. These data suggest that RE activates specific pathways of the UPR (ATF6/IRE1α), whereas PERK/eukaryotic initiation factor 2 alpha/CHOP does not. In conclusion, acute RE results in UPR activation, irrespective of age.
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".