Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter aims to introduce the role of miRNAs in regulating cardiac contraction. Cardiac contraction is triggered by excitation–contraction coupling: the cascade of biological events that begins with cardiac action potential and ends with myocyte contraction and relaxation. Cardiac muscle contraction is determined by the intrinsic contractile proteins: α- and β-myosin heavy chain (αMHC and βMHC). αMHC and βMHC are encoded by MYH6 and MYH7 genes, respectively, and their expression is species specific and varies in response to developmental and pathophysiological signaling alterations. Remarkably, studies revealed that myosin genes not only encode the major contractile proteins of muscle, but also act more broadly to control muscle gene expression and performance through a network of intronic miRNAs: the transcripts from these genes all contain pre-miRNAs. On the other hand, the cytoskeleton of cardiac myocytes consists of actin, the intermediate filament desmin, the sarcomeric protein titin, and α- and β-tubulin, which form the microtubules by polymerization. The loss of integrity of the cytoskeleton, with a resultant loss of linkage of the sarcomere to the sarcolemma and extracellular matrix, would be expected to lead to contractile dysfunction. miRNAs have been found to regulate both the contractile proteins (miR-208 and miR-21) and cytoskeleton proteins (miR-1 and miR- 133) to regulate cardiac contraction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".