Mitochondrial DNA Damage And Impaired Iron Homeostasis In Muscle Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iron dyshomeostasis has been indicated as a major risk factor for the development and progression of several disease conditions. Impairment of iron balance is also an aging feature especially in post‐mitotic tissues. In particular, while age‐related systemic iron deficiency (anemia) compromise oxygen availability, increased cellular and mitochondrial iron levels have been involved in DNA mutation load. We purified total proteins and DNA from muscle samples of young (Y, n=10) and sedentary older adults, classified as high‐ (HFE, n=14) and low‐functioning (LFE, n=6) based on the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). The effect of aging on key proteins involved in iron homeostasis and qualitative alterations of mtDNA and how these relate to physical performance was evaluated. A decrease in muscle volume, as quantified through 3D‐NMR, was found in LFE (38%) and HFE (30%) participants compared to the younger counterpart and positively correlated with physical performance. A lower expression of the iron import protein transferrin receptor (TfR1) but not Zip14 was also found in both groups of elderly participants, regardless of the SPPB score. The analysis of the mutation load of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (e.g., single‐strand, double‐strand breaks and abasic sites), instead, showed an increase in mtDNA damage in HFE and LFE participants, with no differences between the two groups. This study showed an association between altered mitochondrial homeostasis and levels of intracellular iron in aged human muscles. The accumulation of mtDNA mutations and the decline in iron balance may therefore represent critical steps to muscle aging and possible targets for interventions against muscle wasting. Support or Funding Information This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) (R01 AG17994), the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (1 P30 AG028740), “Centro Studi Achille e Linda Lorenzon”, and Fondazione Roma (NCDs Call for Proposal 2013). This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".