High-Intensity Interval Training Improves Cardiac Function by miR-206 Dependent HSP60 Induction in Diabetic Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective A role for microRNAs is implicated in several biological and pathological processes. We investigated the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on molecular markers of diabetic cardiomyopathy in rats. Methods Eighteen male Wistar rats (260 ± 10 g; aged 8 weeks) with streptozotocin (STZ)-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus (55 mg/kg, IP) were randomly allocated to three groups: control, MICT, and HIIT. The two different training protocols were performed 5 days each week for 5 weeks. Cardiac performance (end-systolic and end-diastolic dimensions, ejection fraction), the expression of miR-206, HSP60, and markers of apoptosis (cleaved PARP and cytochrome C) were determined at the end of the exercise interventions. Results Both exercise interventions (HIIT and MICT) decreased blood glucose levels and improved cardiac performance, with greater changes in the HIIT group (p < 0.001, η2: 0.909). While the expressions of miR-206 and apoptotic markers decreased in both training protocols (p < 0.001, η2: 0.967), HIIT caused greater reductions in apoptotic markers and produced a 20% greater reduction in miR-206 compared with the MICT protocol (p < 0.001). Furthermore, both training protocols enhanced the expression of HSP60 (p < 0.001, η2: 0.976), with a nearly 50% greater increase in the HIIT group compared with MICT. Conclusions Our results indicate that both exercise protocols, HIIT and MICT, have the potential to reduce diabetic cardiomyopathy by modifying the expression of miR-206 and its downstream targets of apoptosis. It seems however that HIIT is even more effective than MICT to modulate these molecular markers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".