Doxorubicin chemotherapy affects the intracellular and interstitial free amino acid pools in skeletal muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skeletal muscle (SM) health and integrity is dependent on the dynamic balance between protein synthesis and degradation, and central to this process is the availability of amino acids (AA) in the amino pool. While Doxorubicin (DOX) remains one of the most widely used chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of solid and hematological malignancies, little is known of the effect of the drug on SM, particularly its effect on the availability of amino acids in the tissue. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of DOX administration on vascular, interstitial and intracellular concentrations of AA in SM of the rat up to 8 days after the administration of a 1.5 or 4.5 mg/kg i.p. dose of DOX. In the plasma, total amino acids (TAA) were significantly increased compared to control where greater (P<0.05) concentrations were observed following the 1.5 mg/kg dose compared to the 4.5 mg/kg dose. Compared to control, the 1.5 mg/kg dose resulted in an increase (P<0.05) in interstitial TAA whereas the 4.5 mg/kg resulted in a sustained decrease (P<0.05). Intracellular TAA, essential amino acids (EAA) and branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) where significantly increased in each muscle group analyzed, following the 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg doses compared to control. This study provides important insight into the amino acid response following DOX chemotherapy and presents a substantial foundation for future studies focused on reducing SM damage and recovery by targeting amino acid metabolism.
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".