MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Determining The Role Of Cellular Senescence In Skeletal Muscle Regeneration

2019· article· en· W2954062475 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura V. Young, Michel Arsenault, Craig Campbell, Kiera Rigby, Emma C. Moore, Alasdair Cameron, Adam P. W. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSenescenceSkeletal muscleCardiotoxinRegeneration (biology)BiologyImmunohistochemistryCell biologyPathologyMedicineEndocrinologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite cells drive skeletal muscle regeneration in response to injury, a process regulated by factors released into the local muscle environment. However, the cellular sources of this trophic support are poorly defined. In this regard, recent work on skin and bone repair has revealed a surprising supportive role for cells termed “senescent cells” which are commonly associated with aging and pathology. However, the role of senescence in skeletal muscle repair is currently unknown. The PURPOSE of this study is to determine the presence and contribution of senescent cells in skeletal muscle repair following acute injury. METHODS: The tibialis anterior (TA) of C57BL6 mice was injured with cardiotoxin (CTX) and collected 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21 post-injury for histological/ immunohistochemical (IHC) and gene expression analysis. To examine the function of senescent cells during muscle repair, mice were treated with a senolytic compound (ABT-263) following injury to selectively ablate senescent cells. RESULTS: Senescent cell number (as revealed using the senescence-associated beta-galactosidase (SA-β-gal) assay) increased significantly following injury (p <0.05) and returned to baseline by day 21 post-injury, a time-course that is coincident with the repair process. In agreement with this, qPCR analysis of putative senescence pathways including p16 and p21 and p53 as well as secreted factors commonly secreted by senescent cells such as IL1 and MMP13 were significantly upregulated in injured compared to control tissue (p <0.05). Preliminary IHC analysis demonstrated that at 5 days post-injury, 58% of senescent cells were positive for macrophage marker F480, while at 10 days post-injury, 43% of senescent cells were F480+ and 9% were CD31 positive; an endothelial cell marker. Identification of other cell types is under investigation. Senolytic treatment was effective at removing senescent cells as a significant 44% reduction in the number of SA-β-gal+ cells was observed, the consequences of which on muscle repair are currently under analysis. CONCLUSION: Senescent cells are a newly identified component of the muscle repair environment which may influence skeletal muscle repair and satellite cell function. Supported by NSERC discovery grant and The Canadian Foundation for Innovation and ACOA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence→French-language works237,207→