ATP Synthesis, Mitochondrial Function, and Steroid Biosynthesis in Rodent Primary and Tumor Leydig Cells1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies in MA-10 tumor Leydig cells demonstrated that disruption of the mitochondrial electron-transport chain (ETC), membrane potential (ΔΨ(m)), or ATP synthesis independently inhibited steroidogenesis. In contrast, studies of primary Leydig cells indicated that the ETC, ΔΨ(m), and ATP synthesis cooperatively affected steroidogenesis. These results suggest significant differences between the two systems and call into question the extent to which results from tumor Leydig cells relate to primary cells. Thus, to further understand the similarities and differences between the two systems as well as the impact of ATP disruption on steroidogenesis, we performed comparative studies of MA-10 and primary Leydig cells under similar conditions of mitochondrial disruption. We show that mitochondrial ATP synthesis is critical for steroidogenesis in both primary and tumor Leydig cells. However, in striking contrast to primary cells, perturbation of ΔΨ(m) in MA-10 cells did not substantially decrease cellular ATP content, a perplexing finding because ΔΨ(m) powers the mitochondrial ATP synthase. Further studies revealed that a significant proportion of cellular ATP in MA-10 cells derives from glycolysis. In contrast, primary cells appear to be almost completely dependent on mitochondrial respiration for their energy provision. Inhibitor studies also suggested that the MA-10 ETC is impaired. This work underscores the importance of mitochondrial ATP for hormone-stimulated steroid production in both MA-10 and primary Leydig cells while indicating that caution must be exercised in extrapolating data from tumor cells to primary tissue.
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".