Faculty Opinions recommendation of Short-term calorie restriction enhances skeletal muscle stem cell function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calorie restriction (CR) extends lifespan and ameliorates age-related pathologies in most species studied; yet the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unclear.Using mouse skeletal muscle as a model, we show that CR acts in part by enhancing the function of tissue-specific stem cells.Even short-term CR significantly enhanced stem cell availability and activity in the muscle of young and old animals, in concert with an increase in mitochondrial abundance and induction of conserved metabolic and longevity regulators.Moreover, CR enhanced endogenous muscle repair and CR initiated in either donor or recipient animals improved the contribution of donor cells to regenerating muscle following transplant.These studies indicate that metabolic factors play a critical role in regulating stem cell function and that this regulation can influence the efficacy of recovery from injury and the engraftment of transplanted cells.Calorie restriction (CR) is a dietary intervention that extends lifespan and delays, prevents, or reduces the severity of age-related pathologies in many species and tissues (Ahmet et al., 2005;Hursting et al., 2003;Russell and Kahn, 2007).Indeed, age-matched animals maintained on a reduced calorie diet throughout life show fewer malignancies, enhanced cognitive and motor function, and a lower incidence of diabetes, as compared to control animals allowed food ad libitum.Prior studies in the rodent hematopoietic system (Ertl et al., 2008) suggest that lifelong calorie restriction may maintain stem cell function, which normally declines with age, but whether short-term CR in otherwise healthy young animals might enhance the function of tissue stem cells has not been addressed.Moreover, the effect of CR in recipient animals on the efficiency of stem cell engraftment remains unknown.Answers to both these questions may help to improve the targeting and transplant of stem cells for therapy and illuminate normal metabolic regulators of tissue stem cell function and the age-related factors that typically impair this function (Rossi et al., 2008).
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.088 |
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".