Mitochondrial lactate metabolism: history and implications for exercise and disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mitochondrial structures were probably observed microscopically in the 1840s, but the idea of oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) within mitochondria did not appear until the 1930s. The foundation for research into energetics arose from Meyerhof's experiments on oxidation of lactate in isolated muscles recovering from electrical contractions in an O2 atmosphere. Today, we know that mitochondria are actually reticula and that the energy released from electron pairs being passed along the electron transport chain from NADH to O2 generates a membrane potential and pH gradient of protons that can enter the molecular machine of ATP synthase to resynthesize ATP. Lactate stands at the crossroads of glycolytic and oxidative energy metabolism. Based on reported research and our own modelling in silico, we contend that lactate is not directly oxidized in the mitochondrial matrix. Instead, the interim glycolytic products (pyruvate and NADH) are held in cytosolic equilibrium with the products of the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) reaction and the intermediates of the malate‐aspartate and glycerol 3‐phosphate shuttles. This equilibrium supplies the glycolytic products to the mitochondrial matrix for OXPHOS. LDH in the mitochondrial matrix is not compatible with the cytoplasmic/matrix redox gradient; its presence would drain matrix reducing power and substantially dissipate the proton motive force. OXPHOS requires O2 as the final electron acceptor, but O2 supply is sufficient in most situations, including exercise and often acute illness. Recent studies suggest that atmospheric normoxia may constitute a cellular hyperoxia in mitochondrial disease. As research proceeds appropriate oxygenation levels should be carefully considered. image
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".