An integrative analysis reveals coordinated reprogramming of the epigenome and the transcriptome in human skeletal muscle after training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular endurance exercise training induces beneficial functional and health effects in human skeletal muscle. The putative contribution to the training response of the epigenome as a mediator between genes and environment has not been clarified. Here we investigated the contribution of DNA methylation and associated transcriptomic changes in a well-controlled human intervention study. Training effects were mirrored by significant alterations in DNA methylation and gene expression in regions with a homogeneous muscle energetics and remodeling ontology. Moreover, a signature of DNA methylation and gene expression separated the samples based on training and gender. Differential DNA methylation was predominantly observed in enhancers, gene bodies and intergenic regions and less in CpG islands or promoters. We identified transcriptional regulator binding motifs of MRF, MEF2 and ETS proteins in the proximity of the changing sites. A transcriptional network analysis revealed modules harboring distinct ontologies and, interestingly, the overall direction of the changes of methylation within each module was inversely correlated to expression changes. In conclusion, we show that highly consistent and associated modifications in methylation and expression, concordant with observed health-enhancing phenotypic adaptations, are induced by a physiological stimulus.
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".