Lower oxidative DNA damage despite greater ROS production in muscles from rats selectively bred for high running capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial selection in rat has yielded high-capacity runners (HCR) and low-capacity runners (LCR) that differ in intrinsic (untrained) aerobic exercise ability and metabolic disease risk. To gain insight into how oxygen metabolism may have been affected by selection, we compared mitochondrial function, oxidative DNA damage (8-dihydroxy-guanosine; 8dOHG), and antioxidant enzyme activities in soleus muscle (Sol) and gastrocnemius muscle (Gas) of adult and aged LCR vs. HCR rats. In Sol of adult HCR rats, maximal ADP-stimulated respiration was 37% greater, whereas in Gas of adult HCR rats, there was a 23% greater complex IV-driven respiratory capacity and 54% greater leak as a fraction of electron transport capacity (suggesting looser mitochondrial coupling) vs. LCR rats. H(2)O(2) emission per gram of muscle was 24-26% greater for both muscles in adult HCR rats vs. LCR, although H(2)O(2) emission in Gas was 17% lower in HCR, after normalizing for citrate synthase activity (marker of mitochondrial content). Despite greater H(2)O(2) emission, 8dOHG levels were 62-78% lower in HCR rats due to 62-96% higher superoxide dismutase activity in both muscles and 47% higher catalase activity in Sol muscle in adult HCR rats, with no evidence for higher 8 oxoguanine glycosylase (OGG1; DNA repair enzyme) protein expression. We conclude that genetic segregation for high running capacity has generated a molecular network of cellular adaptations, facilitating a superior response to oxidative stress.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".