Mitochondrial-derived reactive oxygen species influence ADP sensitivity, but not CPT-I substrate sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms regulating oxidative phosphorylation during exercise remain poorly defined; however, key mitochondrial proteins, including carnitine palmitoyltransferase-I (CPT-I) and adenine nucleotide translocase, have redox-sensitive sites. Interestingly, muscle contraction has recently been shown to increase mitochondrial membrane potential and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production; therefore, we aimed to determine if mitochondrial-derived ROS influences bioenergetic responses to exercise. Specifically, we examined the influence of acute exercise on mitochondrial bioenergetics in WT (wild type) and transgenic mice (MCAT, mitochondrial-targeted catalase transgenic) possessing attenuated mitochondrial ROS. We found that ablating mitochondrial ROS did not alter palmitoyl-CoA (P-CoA) respiratory kinetics or influence the exercise-mediated reductions in malonyl CoA sensitivity, suggesting that mitochondrial ROS does not regulate CPT-I. In contrast, while mitochondrial protein content, maximal coupled respiration, and ADP (adenosine diphosphate) sensitivity in resting muscle were unchanged in the absence of mitochondrial ROS, exercise increased the apparent ADP Km (decreased ADP sensitivity) ∼30% only in WT mice. Moreover, while the presence of P-CoA decreased ADP sensitivity, it did not influence the basic response to exercise, as the apparent ADP Km was increased only in the presence of mitochondrial ROS. This basic pattern was also mirrored in the ability of ADP to suppress mitochondrial H2O2 emission rates, as exercise decreased the suppression of H2O2 only in WT mice. Altogether, these data demonstrate that while exercise-induced mitochondrial-derived ROS does not influence CPT-I substrate sensitivity, it inhibits ADP sensitivity independent of P-CoA. These data implicate mitochondrial redox signaling as a regulator of oxidative phosphorylation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".