Muscle of obese insulin-resistant humans exhibits losses in proteostasis and attenuated proteome dynamics that are improved by exercise training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We examined muscle proteostasis in obese insulin-resistant (OIR) individuals to determine whether endurance exercise could positively influence proteome dynamics in this population. Male OIR (n = 3) and lean, healthy controls (LHC; n = 4) were recruited and underwent a 14-d measurement protocol of daily deuterium oxide (D 2 O) consumption and serial biopsies of vastus lateralis muscle. The OIR group then completed 10-weeks of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), encompassing 3 sessions per week of cycle ergometer exercise with 1 min intervals at 100 % maximum aerobic power (W max ) interspersed by 1 min recovery periods. The number of intervals per session progressed from 4 to 8, and during weeks 8-10 the 14-d measurement protocol was repeated. The abundance and turnover rates of 880 and 301 proteins, respectively, were measured. OIR and LHC muscle exhibited 352 differences ( p < 0.05, false discovery rate ( p < 0.05) differences in protein turnover. OIR muscle was enriched with markers of metabolic stress, protein misfolding and components of the ubiquitin-proteasome system, and the turnover rate of many of these proteins was less compared to LHC muscle. HIIT altered the abundance of 53 proteins and increased the turnover rate of 22 proteins ( p < 0.05) in OIR muscle and tended to restore proteostasis, evidenced by increasing muscle protein turnover rates and normalizing proteasome composition in OIR participants. In conclusion, obesity and insulin resistance are associated with compromised muscle proteostasis, which can be partially restored by endurance 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".