Circadian rhythms in myocardial metabolism and contractile function: influence of workload and oleate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple extracardiac stimuli, such as workload and circulating nutrients (e.g., fatty acids), known to influence myocardial metabolism and contractile function exhibit marked circadian rhythms. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the rat heart exhibits circadian rhythms in its responsiveness to changes in workload and/or fatty acid (oleate) availability. Thus, hearts were isolated from male Wistar rats (housed during a 12:12-h light-dark cycle: lights on at 9 AM) at 9 AM, 3 PM, 9 PM, and 3 AM and perfused in the working mode ex vivo with 5 mM glucose plus either 0.4 or 0.8 mM oleate. Following 20-min perfusion at normal workload (i.e., 100 cm H(2)O afterload), hearts were challenged with increased workload (140 cm H(2)O afterload plus 1 microM epinephrine). In the presence of 0.4 mM oleate, myocardial metabolism exhibited a marked circadian rhythm, with decreased rates of glucose oxidation, increased rates of lactate release, decreased glycogenolysis capacity, and increased channeling of oleate into nonoxidative pathways during the light phase. Rat hearts also exhibited a modest circadian rhythm in responsiveness to the workload challenge when perfused in the presence of 0.4 mM oleate, with increased myocardial oxygen consumption at the dark-to-light phase transition. However, rat hearts perfused in the presence of 0.8 mM oleate exhibited a markedly blunted contractile function response to the workload challenge during the light phase. In conclusion, these studies expose marked circadian rhythmicities in myocardial oxidative and nonoxidative metabolism as well as responsiveness of the rat heart to changes in workload and fatty acid availability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".