MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224438985 · doi:10.3390/membranes12050464

Characterizing Extracellular Vesicles and Particles Derived from Skeletal Muscle Myoblasts and Myotubes and the Effect of Acute Contractile Activity

2022· article· en· W4224438985 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Bydak, Taiana M. Pierdoná, Samira Seif, Karim Sidhom, Hagar I. Labouta, Joseph W. Gordon, Ayesha Saleem

Bibliographic record

VenueMembranes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
KeywordsMyogenesisC2C12MyocyteSkeletal muscleChemistryCell biologyExosomeExtracellularIn vitroAndrologyBiologyMolecular biologyBiochemistryMicrovesiclesAnatomyMedicinemicroRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracellular vesicles (EVs), released from all cells, are essential to cellular communication and contain biomolecular cargo that can affect recipient cell function. Studies on the effects of contractile activity (exercise) on EVs usually rely on plasma/serum-based assessments, which contain EVs from many different cells. To specifically characterize skeletal muscle−derived vesicles and the effect of acute contractile activity, we used an in vitro model where C2C12 mouse myoblasts were differentiated to form myotubes. EVs were isolated from conditioned media from muscle cells at pre-differentiation (myoblasts) and post-differentiation (myotubes) and also from acutely stimulated myotubes (1 h @ 14 V, C-Pace EM, IonOptix, Westwood, MA, USA) using total exosome isolation reagent (TEI, ThermoFisher (Waltham, MA, USA), referred to as extracellular particles [EPs]) and differential ultracentrifugation (dUC; EVs). Myotube-EPs (~98 nm) were 41% smaller than myoblast-EPs (~167 nm, p < 0.001, n = 8−10). Two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for the size distribution of myotube vs. myoblast-EPs (p < 0.01, n = 10−13). In comparison, myoblast-EPs displayed a bimodal size distribution profile with peaks at <200 nm and 400−600, whereas myotube-Eps were largely 50−300 nm in size. Total protein yield from myotube-EPs was nearly 15-fold higher than from the myoblast-EPs, (p < 0.001 n = 6−9). Similar biophysical characteristics were observed when EVs were isolated using dUC: myotube-EVs (~195 nm) remained 41% smaller in average size than myoblast-EVs (~330 nm, p = 0.07, n = 4−6) and had comparable size distribution profiles to EPs isolated via TEI. Myotube-EVs also had 4.7-fold higher protein yield vs. myoblast EVs (p < 0.05, n = 4−6). Myotube-EPs exhibited significantly decreased expression of exosomal marker proteins TSG101, CD63, ALIX and CD81 compared with myoblast-EPs (p < 0.05, n = 7−12). Conversely, microvesicle marker ARF6 and lipoprotein marker APO-A1 were only found in the myotube-EPs (p < 0.05, n = 4−12). There was no effect of acute stimulation on myotube-EP biophysical characteristics (n = 7) or on the expression of TSG101, ARF6 or CD81 (n = 5−6). Myoblasts treated with control or acute stimulation−derived EPs (13 µg/well) for 48 h and 72 h showed no changes in mitochondrial mass (MitoTracker Red, ThermoFisher, Waltham, MA, USA), cell viability or cell count (n = 3−4). Myoblasts treated with EP-depleted media (72 h) exhibited ~90% lower cell counts (p < 0.01, n = 3). Our data show that EVs differed in size, distribution, protein yield and expression of subtype markers pre vs. post skeletal muscle−differentiation into myotubes. There was no effect of acute stimulation on biophysical profile or protein markers in EPs. Acute stimulation−derived EPs did not alter mitochondrial mass or cell count/viability. Further investigation into the effects of chronic contractile activity on the biophysical characteristics and cargo of skeletal muscle−specific EVs are warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMembranesSame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207