Chronic uphill and downhill exercise protocols do not lead to sarcomerogenesis in mouse skeletal muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that eccentric contraction (EC) is associated with increases in serially arranged sarcomeres (sarcomerogenesis), while concentric contraction (CC) has been associated with serial sarcomeres decrease. Sarcomerogenesis following EC is thought to be a protective muscle adaptation, preventing muscle injury in future eccentric exercise bouts (repeated bout effect). However, the mechanisms underlying sarcomerogenesis in EC remain unknown, and the sarcomerogenic responses observed in response to EC and CC are contradictory. We measured sarcomere length, sarcomere length uniformity, serial sarcomere number, and fascicle length in gastrocnemius medialis, tibialis anterior, vastus medialis and vastus lateralis in sedentary (SED) mice, and in mice following protocols of moderate uphill (TRU) and downhill (TRD) training and uphill (OTU) and downhill (OTD) overtraining. We found pain sensitivity after the first bout of EC exercise on TRD and OTD followed by a normalized sensory response after four weeks of training, indicating a repeated bout effect. However, these findings were not associated with sarcomerogenesis, as serial sarcomere numbers did not increase in TRD and OTD skeletal muscle samples compared to controls (SED). However, we found a decrease in serial sarcomere number in VL and TA in OTU group mice, which was associated with a decrease in fascicle length and no change of sarcomere length at the tested joint configuration. We conclude that excessive concentric muscle contraction (OTU group mice), leads to a decrease in serial sarcomere number, while moderate or excessive eccentric training, did not result in sarcomerogenesis, as reported in the literature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".