MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Influence of Androgen Receptors on Muscle Repair and Hypertrophy

2022· article· en· W4225381229 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Physical Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Androgen receptorMuscle hypertrophyInternal medicineEndocrinologySkeletal muscleMedicineReceptorMuscle damageResistance trainingBiologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms underlying inter‐individual variation in adaptation to exercise have yet to be fully elucidated. Recently, high responders to resistance training (RT) have demonstrated greater levels of androgen receptor (AR) content, and therefore AR may be a factor underlying the variation in the adaptive response to resistance exercise. Moreover, there has been inconclusive findings surrounding the impact of AR content in females as well as following damage. In the current study, twenty‐six healthy young men (n=13) and women (n=13) underwent an acute bout of damaging exercise consisting of 300 eccentric kicks, followed by 10 weeks of full‐body RT to investigate changes in AR content following acute muscle damage and following chronic resistance exercise. This was assessed in the context of the satellite cell response and during muscle repair and hypertrophy. Skeletal muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis were taken at baseline, 48 hours post damage and 48 hours following the last bout of RT. RT‐qPCR and western blots were performed to quantify AR gene expression and protein content, respectively. An immunofluorescence staining protocol was optimized for the visualization of AR protein abundance. Results were considered in the context of the SC response and muscle hypertrophy data from the same cohort. AR content increased from baseline (30457 +/‐ 4399 a.u.) to post‐damage (66448 +/‐ 8083 a.u.) by 218% (p=0.005) and post RT (60889 +/‐ 6636 a.u.) by 199% (p=0.003). Those with the greatest increase in SC content post‐damage also had the greatest increase in AR content (p=0.01). Individuals with the greatest increase in leg‐lean mass following RT also had the greatest increase in AR content (p=0.05). Preliminary data from western blot analysis revealed that AR protein content post‐damage in males was correlated with activated SC number (MyoD+ cells) (p=0.01). We then aimed to investigate sex differences in the context of AR content since there is a paucity of work in females. Males (61550 +/‐ 10961 a.u.) had a 198% greater change in AR content than females (31104 +/‐ 7499 a.u) from baseline to post‐damage (p=0.03). Males also had a greater change in AR content (3.186 +/‐ 0.5443) than females (2.003 +/‐ 0.2625) post‐RT, relative to baseline. In males, those with greater relative gains in muscle fibre CSA (high responders), post‐RT, had a 373% greater change in AR content (64936 +/‐ 11783 a.u.) from baseline to post‐RT than low responders (17388 +/‐ 15438) (p = 0.03). Interestingly in females, those with greater relative gain in CSA post‐RT (1.681 +/‐ 0.4120) had a trend towards lower AR content post‐RT compared to low responders (2.502 +/‐ 0.1946) (p = 0.06). This study is the first to immunofluorescently stain AR content for visualization and quantification in skeletal muscle. Collectively, these findings suggest that AR content influences SC activity and exhibits sex differences following damage and chronic resistance exercise.

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.

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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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