Mitochondrial stress responses in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: metabolic dysfunction or adaptive reprogramming?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial stress may be a secondary contributor to muscle weakness in inherited muscular dystrophies. Duchenne muscular dystrophy has received the majority of attention, whereby most discoveries suggest mitochondrial ATP synthesis may be reduced. However, not all studies support this finding. Furthermore, some studies have reported increased mitochondrial reactive oxygen species and propensity for permeability transition pore formation as an inducer of apoptosis, although divergent findings have also been described. A closer examination of the literature suggests the degree and direction of mitochondrial stress responses may depend on the progression of the disease, the muscle type examined, the mouse model used with regard to preclinical research, the precise metabolic pathways in consideration, and in some cases, the in vitro technique used to assess a given mitochondrial bioenergetic function. One intent of this review is to provide careful considerations for future experimental designs to resolve the heterogeneous nature of mitochondrial stress during the progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Such considerations have implications for other muscular dystrophies as well which are addressed briefly herein. A renewed perspective of the term "mitochondrial dysfunction" is presented whereby stress responses might be re-explored in future investigations as direct contributors to myopathy versus an adaptive "reprogramming" intended to maintain homeostasis in the face of disease stressors themselves. In so doing, the prospective development of mitochondrial enhancement therapies can be driven by advances in perspectives as much as experimental approaches when resolving the precise relationships between mitochondrial remodeling and muscle weakness in Duchenne and, indeed, other muscular dystrophies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".