Progenitor Cell Mobilization Following a Half-Marathon in Elite Wheelchair Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progenitor cells circulate in the blood, and are believe to be involved in tissue repair and adaptation. Acute lower body endurance exercise transiently increases various circulating progenitor cell populations in able-bodied individuals. The effects of exercise on progenitor cell mobilization in wheelchair athletes (WCAs) performing upper body exercise remain unknown. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of a half-marathon on progenitor cell mobilization in elite WCAs. METHODS: Eight elite endurance WCAs (27.5±4.0 years, 162.5±18.6 cm, 53.5±10.9 kg, 2.4±0.6 ml/kg VO2peak, 21.5±6.7 years post spinal cord injury) completed a 25-km time trial. Peripheral blood samples were collected prior to and immediately upon completion of the trial for analysis of circulating progenitor cells (CPCs: CD34+), hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs: CD34+CD45dim), hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs: CD34+CD38-CD45dim), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs: CD34+VEGFR2+), bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs: CD45-CD34-CD31-CD105+), adipose tissue-derived MSCs (AT-MSCs: CD45-CD34+CD31-CD105+), and lactate. RESULTS: At baseline, the concentration of HPCs were significantly positively correlated to VO2peak (Rho=0.71, p<0.05), the concentration of HSCs tended to be positively correlated to VO2peak (Rho=0.62, p=0.086), and the concentration of AT-MSCs was significantly negatively correlated to VO2peak (Rho=-0.69, p<0.05). Exercise tended to increase the concentration of CPCs (2 fold, p=0.099), and decrease the percentage of HPCs (39%, p<0.05), and HSCs (38%, p=0.057). The exercise-induced change in blood lactate was positively correlated to the change in the concentration of CPCs (Rho=0.88, p<0.0001), EPCs (Rho=0.81, p<0.01), and AT-MSCs (Rho=0.67, p=0.059). CONCLUSIONS: In elite WCAs, the quantity of circulating progenitor cells at rest was related to fitness, and the mobilization of progenitor cells was related to exercise intensity as determined by blood lactate levels. These data have implications for the effects of exercise tissue adaptations in WCA, and for the mechanisms responsible for progenitor cell mobilization in weight-bearing versus non-weight bearing 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".