Aerobic and resistance training do not influence plasma carnosinase content or activity in type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A particular allele of the carnosinase gene (CNDP1) is associated with reduced plasma carnosinase activity and reduced risk for nephropathy in diabetic patients. On the one hand, animal and human data suggest that hyperglycemia increases plasma carnosinase activity. On the other hand, we recently reported lower carnosinase activity levels in elite athletes involved in high-intensity exercise compared with untrained controls. Therefore, this study investigates whether exercise training and the consequent reduction in hyperglycemia can suppress carnosinase activity and content in adults with type 2 diabetes. Plasma samples were taken from 243 males and females with type 2 diabetes (mean age = 54.3 yr, SD = 7.1) without major microvascular complications before and after a 6-mo exercise training program [4 groups: sedentary control (n = 61), aerobic exercise (n = 59), resistance exercise (n = 63), and combined exercise training (n = 60)]. Plasma carnosinase content and activity, hemoglobin (Hb) A1c, lipid profile, and blood pressure were measured. A 6-mo exercise training intervention, irrespective of training modality, did not decrease plasma carnosinase content or activity in type 2 diabetic patients. Plasma carnosinase content and activity showed a high interindividual but very low intraindividual variability over the 6-mo period. Age and sex, but not Hb A1c, were significantly related to the activity or content of this enzyme. It can be concluded that the beneficial effects of exercise training on the incidence of diabetic complications are probably not related to a lowering effect on plasma carnosinase content or activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".