Oral glucosamine sulfate supplementation does not induce endoplasmic reticulum stress or activate the unfolded protein response in circulating leukocytes of human subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucosamine sulfate is a dietary supplement that is marketed as a treatment for osteoarthritis. Recent evidence from animal and cell culture models have suggested that glucosamine treatment can promote the misfolding of proteins and the activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR). We investigated whether glucosamine sulfate supplementation activates the UPR in circulating leukocytes of human subjects. Cultured Thp1 human monocytes were exposed to increasing concentrations of glucosamine (0, 0.25, 1.0, 4.0 mmol · L(-1)) for 18 h. We observed a dose-dependent increase in intracellular glucosamine levels as well as the activation of UPR. To test the effect of glucosamine sulfate supplementation in humans, 14 healthy human subjects took 1500 mg · day(-1) glucosamine sulfate for 14 days. Metabolic parameters and blood samples were collected before and after supplementation. In humans, glucosamine sulfate supplementation did not alter metabolic parameters including lipid levels and glucose tolerance. Further, glucosamine sulfate supplementation did not affect intracellular glucosamine levels or activate the UPR in the leukocytes of human subjects. Our results indicate that in healthy human subjects, the recommended dose of glucosamine sulfate (1500 mg · day(-1)) for 14 days does not significantly alter intracellular glucosamine levels and does not activate the UPR in circulating leukocytes.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".