Abstract P005: Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Heart of Coronary Artery Disease: Correlation with Telomerase Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rational: Heart disease is the leading cause of death worldwide and abnormalities in mitochondrial function are increasingly recognized in association with cardiomyopathy, heart failure, endothelial dysfunction and coronary artery disease (CAD). However the direct contribution and mechanism of the mitochondrial dysfunction on the development of CAD is not fully determined. We have recently shown a critical role of TERT, the catalytic subunit of telomerase, as a regulator of mitochondrial integrity in the microcirculation. We observed increased expression of the dominant negative splice variant of TERT ( β -del) in the Left Ventricle from subjects with CAD. Therefore, we hypothesize that TERT ( β -del) decreases mitochondrial telomerase activity in the human heart resulting in mitochondrial damage that contributes to an environment that promotes the development of CAD . Methods: Fresh and frozen tissue samples of discarded heart tissue from subjects with and without CAD were used. Protein, cell lysate or mitochondria were isolated using standard techniques. Mitochondrial DNA, levels of NAD+ and ATP as well as mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation were evaluated. Results: PCR analysis revealed an increased frequency of mitochondrial common deletion, an established marker for mitochondrial abnormalities (0.9±0.2 in CAD; vs 1.5±0.2 in non-CAD; N=8; P<0.05). NAD+ and ATP levels were significantly decreased in CAD subjects compared to non-CAD (291±62 and 0.5±0.1 RLU/mg protein in CAD vs. 4203±336 and 84.1±24.8 pmol/mg protein in non-CAD respectively; N=15; P<0.005). Decrease respiration control index (RCI) in the presence of either complex I substrate K (+)-pyruvate/malate (PM) or complex II substrate K (+)-succinate (SUC) was observed in tissue form subjects with CAD (KPM-RCI: 2.9±1.3; SUC-RCI: 7.6± 1.9 in CAD vs KPM-RCI: 8.5±1.9; SUC-RCI: 19.1± 8.3 in non-CAD; N=3; P<0.05) Conclusions: Together these results point to significantly impaired mitochondrial function in subjects with CAD that are associated with decreased in mitochondrial telomerase 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".