Role of glucose metabolism in the recovery of postischemic LV mechanical function: effects of insulin and other metabolic modulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of proton (H+) production from glucose metabolism in the recovery of myocardial function during postischemic reperfusion and its alteration by insulin and other metabolic modulators were examined. Rat hearts were perfused in vitro with Krebs-Henseleit solution containing palmitate (1.2 mmol/l) and glucose (11 mmol/l) under nonischemic conditions or during reperfusion following no-flow ischemia. Perfusate contained normal insulin (n-Ins, 50 mU/l), zero insulin (0-Ins), or supplemental insulin (s-Ins, 1,000 mU/l) or other metabolic modulators [dichloroacetate (DCA) at 3 mmol/l, oxfenicine at 1 mmol/l, and N6-cyclohexyladenosine (CHA) at 0.5 micromol/l]. Relative to n-Ins, 0-Ins depressed rates of glycolysis and glucose oxidation in nonischemic hearts and impaired recovery of postischemic function. Relative to n-Ins, s-Ins did not affect aerobic glucose metabolism and did not improve recovery when present during reperfusion. When present during ischemia and reperfusion, s-Ins impaired recovery. Combinations of metabolic modulators with s-Ins stimulated glucose oxidation approximately 2.5-fold in nonischemic hearts and reduced H+ production. DCA and CHA, in combination with s-Ins, improved recovery of function, but addition of oxfenicine to this combination provided no further benefit. Although DCA and CHA were each partially protective in hearts perfused with n-Ins, optimal protection was achieved with DCA + CHA; recovery of function was inversely proportional to H+ production during reperfusion. Although supplemental insulin is not beneficial, elimination of H+ production from glucose metabolism by simultaneous inhibition of glycolysis and stimulation of glucose oxidation optimizes recovery of postischemic mechanical function.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".