Chronic 5-Aminoimidazole-4-Carboxamide-1-β-d-Ribofuranoside Treatment Induces Phenotypic Changes in Skeletal Muscle, but Does Not Improve Disease Outcomes in the R6/2 Mouse Model of Huntington’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative genetic disorder characterized by motor, cognitive, and psychiatric symptoms. It is well established that regular physical activity supports brain health, benefiting cognitive function, mental health as well as brain structure and plasticity. Exercise mimetics (EMs) are a group of drugs and small molecules that target signaling pathways in skeletal muscle known to be activated by endurance exercise. The EM 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide-1-β-d-ribofuranoside (AICAR) has been shown to induce cognitive benefits in healthy mice. Since AICAR does not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, its beneficial effect on the brain has been ascribed to its impact on skeletal muscle. Our objective, therefore, was to examine the effect of chronic AICAR treatment on the muscular and neurological pathology in a mouse model of HD. To this end, R6/2 mice were treated with AICAR for 8 weeks and underwent regular neurobehavioral testing. Under our conditions, AICAR increased expression of PGC-1α, a powerful phenotypic modifier of muscle, and induced the expected shift toward a more oxidative muscle phenotype in R6/2 mice. However, this treatment failed to induce benefits on HD progression. Indeed, neurobehavioral deficits, striatal, and muscle mutant huntingtin aggregate density, as well as muscle atrophy were not mitigated by the chronic administration of AICAR. Although the muscle adaptations seen in HD mice following AICAR treatment may still provide therapeutically relevant benefits to patients with limited mobility, our findings indicate that under our experimental conditions, AICAR had no effect on several hallmarks of HD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".