Effects of acetate infusion and hyperoxia on muscle substrate phosphorylation after onset of moderate exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether increased muscle acetylcarnitine provision (acetate infusion) or hyperoxia (100% O(2)) would increase the rate of oxidative phosphorylation and reduce the reliance on muscle substrate phosphorylation after the onset of moderate exercise. Eight subjects completed three randomized trials, each separated by 1 wk: 1) saline infusion for 1 h before exercise, while breathing room air for 20 min before exercise and during 120 s of cycling at 65% maximal exercise (VO(2 max)) (CON), 2) saline infusion with 4 mmol/kg body wt sodium acetate, while breathing room air before and during exercise (ACE), and 3) saline infusion and breathing 100% O(2) before and during exercise (HYP). Muscle biopsies were sampled at rest and after 30 and 120 s of exercise. ACE increased muscle acetyl-CoA and acetylcarnitine contents at rest vs. CON and HYP [22.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 8.9 +/- 2.4 and 10.5 +/- 1.8 micromol/kg dry muscle (dm); 11.0 +/- 1.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.3 and 4.0 +/- 1.2 mmol/kg dm]. Acetate had no effect on resting pyruvate dehydrogenase activity in the active form (PDH(a)) among CON, ACE, and HYP. During exercise, acetyl-CoA and acetylcarnitine were unchanged in ACE but increased over time in the CON and HYP trials, and PDH(a) increased similarly in all trials. Muscle phosphocreatine use, lactate accumulation, and substrate phosphorylation energy provision after 30 or 120 s of exercise were similar in all trials. In summary, increased acetylcarnitine availability did not accelerate the rate of oxidative phosphorylation at the onset of exercise, suggesting that this is not a site of extra substrate. Hyperoxia had no effect on substrate phosphorylation, suggesting that O(2) availability does not limit oxidative phosphorylation at the onset of moderate exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 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".