Gene Expression, Fiber Type, and Strength Are Similar Between Left and Right Legs in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methodological issues relevant to studies using microarrays and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in human aging have rarely been evaluated. Because aging may accentuate biological differences between muscles, we compared transcriptome expression patterns, targeted messenger RNA (mRNA) abundance, strength, and muscle fiber type in the right and left legs of older adults. Muscle biopsies were taken from each Vastus lateralis in eight older (71 +/- 2 years) men, and isometric strength was determined. Samples were analyzed using an Affymetrix gene array, ATPase histochemistry, and RT-PCR for mRNA species involved in metabolism, apoptosis, vascular growth, and antioxidant status. Microarray analysis found that 31 of 5499 genes (0.6%) were significantly different between legs (negative log of the p value [NLOGP] >/= 2.0, but fold < 1.5), with only one gene, jumonji domain containing 1C (JMJD1C), being significantly different by >/= 1.50-fold. None of the mRNA species, or muscle fiber type, size, or strength, was different between legs. These findings are important for the design and analysis of studies using muscle data in older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".