MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional and Molecular Characterization of Skeletal Muscle‐Specific CARM1 Knockout Mice

2021· article· en· W3170772165 on OpenAlexafffund
Tiffany L. van Lieshout, Derek W. Stouth, Sean Y. Ng, Irena A. Rebalka, Thomas J. Hawke, Vladimir Ljubicic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSkeletal muscleKnockout mouseArginineBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryChemistryCell biologyMedicineGeneAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coactivator‐associated arginine methyltransferase 1 [CARM1, also known as protein arginine methyltransferase 4 (PRMT4)] catalyzes the methylation of arginine residues on target proteins. Skeletal muscle CARM1 appears to have important functions during myogenesis, as well as in response to exercise and during disuse‐induced phenotypic plasticity. However, a mechanistic understanding of the role(s) of CARM1 in skeletal muscle biology is lacking. In this study, we test the hypotheses that: 1) Skeletal muscle‐specific CARM1 knockout (mKO) animals will have reduced strength, endurance, and motor function compared to their wild‐type (WT) littermates, and 2) The acute intracellular and gene expression responses in skeletal muscle to a single bout of exercise will be altered in CARM1 mKO versus WT animals. To address our first hypothesis male 12‐week‐old mKO mice and WT littermates underwent a variety of functional tests. We found that mKO mice had significantly weaker maximum grip strength, increased fatigue, and slower ambulatory activity relative to their WT counterparts. Compared to WT mice, mKO animals had altered muscle mass depending on the tissue analysed. Immunofluorescence fiber type analysis revealed significant differences between male mKO and WT mice in the soleus (SOL) muscle. Male animals were then randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups: sedentary (SED), acute exercise (0AE), or acute exercise followed by 3 hours of recovery (3AE). CARM1 mKO animals ran for significantly less time and distance (~30%) than their WT counterparts. CARM1 mRNA levels remained constant across timepoints in WT animals in both the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) and SOL. EDL muscle from WT animals displayed significantly increased (737%) exercise‐induced PGC‐1α mRNA between SED and 3AE groups, while no increase was observed in mKO animals. PGC‐1α levels were similar between all experimental groups in both WT and mKO animals in the SOL muscle. Additionally, PRMT1, PRMT5, and PRMT7 transcript expression was also consistent across timepoints, genotypes, and muscles. We observed that CARM1 protein levels were similar between experimental groups in WT animals. WT and mKO animals displayed increased phosphorylated AMPK levels at 0AE when compared to SED. Total AMPK levels were consistent across all 3 experimental groups in both WT and mKO animals, while removal of CARM1 increased AMPK content. AMPK activation status was significantly elevated from SED to 0AE, with a return to basal levels at 3AE in both the WT and mKO animals. PGC‐1α protein content was not altered by exercise or by genotype and PRMT1, PRMT5, and PRMT7 levels were also similar between groups. In conclusion, this ongoing study demonstrates that the removal of CARM1 in skeletal muscle negatively impacts measures of muscle function, as well as alters the molecular response of skeletal muscle to acute physical activity. Altogether this study serves to increase our understanding of CARM1 and its role in regulating skeletal muscle plasticity.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207