Exercise Does Not Restore Nitric Oxide Concentrations In Cardiac And Skeletal Muscle Following Doxorubicin Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doxorubicin (Dox) is a commonly used chemotherapeutic that can cause widespread toxicity in healthy tissues, including dysregulation of nitric oxide formation (NO). PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to determine if exercise could ameliorate the effects of Dox on NO formation in the left ventricle (LV), soleus (SOL), and white gastrocnemius (WG). METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 36) were randomly assigned to one of six experimental groups (A-F). Groups A-E received a single intraperitoneal injection of Dox (4.5 mg/kg), and Group F served as a control group. Group A and E were sacrificed 24 and 48 hours following Dox injection, respectively. Groups B and C swam for 60 minutes 24 hours following injection, and were sacrificed at 25 and 48 hours, respectively. Group D swam for 60 minutes at 24 and 48 hours, and was sacrificed at 49 hours. RESULTS: Dox reduced (p < 0.05) NO concentration in group A (LV: 16.7 ± 0.7; WG: 13.6 ± 1.2 μmol/mg) and E (LV: 14.6 ± 1.0; WG: 12.3 ± 0.8; SOL: 16.7 ± 1.4 μmol/mg) as compared to group F (control; LV: 28.9 ± 4.0; WG: 23.7 ± 2.8; SOL: 24.2 ± 1.9 μmol/mg), respectively. Similarly, NO was decreased (P < 0.05) in LV, WG, and SOL in groups B (14.7 ± 0.9; 11.8 ± 0.6; 18.25 ± 1.0 μmol/mg), C (13.6 ± 0.9; 12.75 ± 0.8; 17.3 ± 1.4 μmol/mg), and D (13.3 ± 1.0; 11.7 ± 0.5; 18.25 ± 0.7 μmol/mg) as compared to group F, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dox appears to significantly decrease NO concentration in the LV, WG, and SOL. Acute exercise following Dox injection does not appear to “normalize” NO levels to that of control, suggesting traditional NO stimulus is not able to override Dox-induced dysregulation. FUNDING: This work was supported by a NOSMFA grant.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".