MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protein Arginine Methyltransferase Expression During An Acute Time Course Of Denervation‐Induced Skeletal Muscle Plasticity

2016· article· en· W2591264048 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Derek W. Stouth, Vladimir Ljubicic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArginineDenervationSkeletal muscleProtein expressionMethyltransferasePlasticityChemistryCell biologyInternal medicineMedicineBiochemistryBiologyMaterials scienceAmino acidMethylation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein arginine methyltransferase 1 (PRMT1) and co‐activator‐associated arginine methyltransferase 1 (CARM1) are critical components of a diverse set of intracellular functions including cell signaling and transcriptional regulation. Despite the limited number of studies investigating PRMT biology in muscle, evidence strongly suggests that PRMT1 and CARM1 are important players in the regulation of skeletal muscle plasticity. However, their role in disuse‐induced muscle remodeling is unknown. Thus, our study objective was to determine whether denervation‐induced muscle disuse alters PRMT expression and activity in skeletal muscle and to contextualize PRMT biology within the early disuse‐evoked signaling events that precede muscle atrophy. After unilateral sectioning of the sciatic nerve, mice were subjected to 6 (n = 7), 12 (n = 7), 24 (n = 6), 72 (n = 5), or 168 (n = 4) hours of denervation. The contralateral limb served as an internal control. Western blot analyses were employed to determine protein expression levels in the denervated tibialis anterior (TA) muscle, relative to the contralateral, non‐denervated, control TA muscle across the experimental time course. A ~25% reduction (p < 0.05) in TA muscle mass was observed in the denervated hind limb after 168 hours. PRMT1 and CARM1 protein expression were significantly increased by 3‐ and 1.3‐fold, respectively, in the denervated hind limb, as compared to the control limb after 72 and 168 hours of inactivity. This differential response to denervation‐induced muscle disuse suggests a unique sensitivity to, or regulation by, potential upstream signaling and transcriptional pathways. These denervation‐induced increases in PRMT expression were accompanied by a ~15–25% elevation in cellular mono‐methyl arginine content at 72 and 168 hours, a marker of global PRMT methyltransferase activity. Muscle RING‐finger protein‐1 (MuRF1) protein expression was also significantly elevated 2.5–3‐fold after 72 and 168 hours of denervation, suggesting that PRMT expression may be mediated by factors governing the muscle atrophy program. Peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor‐γ coactivator‐1α (PGC‐1α) protein expression was diminished by ~40% (p < 0.05) in the denervated limb after 6 hours and remained depressed throughout the time course. In contrast, p38 mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) phosphorylation status (phosphorylated/total) tended to be elevated by ~10–50% in the denervated muscle throughout the experimental time course. AMP‐activated protein kinase (AMPK) phosphorylation status was lowered by ~40% (p < 0.05) after 6 and 12 hours of denervation. By 168 hours, AMPK phosphorylation status was 50% greater in the denervated limb than in the control limb. Our data suggest that alterations in AMPK, p38 MAPK, and PGC‐1α signaling are among the earliest signals that precede the induction of the atrophy program in response to neurogenic muscle disuse. Furthermore, PRMT1 and CARM1 may contribute to the remodeling of muscle during denervation‐induced atrophy. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Canada Research Chairs

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207