Protein arginine methyltransferase expression and activity during myogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the emerging importance of protein arginine methyltransferases (PRMTs) in regulating skeletal muscle plasticity, PRMT biology during muscle development is complex and not completely understood. Therefore, our purpose was to investigate PRMT1, -4, and -5 expression and function in skeletal muscle cells during the phenotypic remodeling elicited by myogenesis. C2C12 muscle cell maturation, assessed during the myoblast (MB) stage, and during days 1, 3, 5, and 7 of differentiation, was employed as an in vitro model of myogenesis. We observed PRMT-specific patterns of expression and activity during myogenesis. PRMT4 and -5 gene expression was unchanged, while PRMT1 mRNA and protein content were significantly induced. Cellular monomethylarginines (MMAs) and symmetric dimethylarginines (SDMAs), indicative of global and type II PRMT activities, respectively, remained steady during development, while type I PRMT activity indicator asymmetric dimethylarginines (ADMAs) increased through myogenesis. Histone 4 arginine 3 (H4R3) and H3R17 contents were elevated coincident with the myonuclear accumulation of PRMT1 and -4. Collectively, this suggests that PRMTs are methyl donors throughout myogenesis and demonstrate specificity for their protein targets. Cells were then treated with TC-E 5003 (TC-E), a selective inhibitor of PRMT1 in order to specifically examine the enzymes role during myogenic differentiation. TC-E treated cells exhibited decrements in muscle differentiation, which were consistent with attenuated mitochondrial biogenesis and respiratory function. In summary, the present study increases our understanding of PRMT1, -4, and -5 biology during the plasticity of skeletal muscle development. Our results provide evidence for a role of PRMT1, via a mitochondrially mediated mechanism, in driving the muscle differentiation program.
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".