Sodium Nitrate Supplementation Does Not Alter Mitochondrial Bioenergetics In The Heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sodium nitrate has been shown to protect against the development of hypertension mediated heart failure and improve the functional outcomes following doxorubicin‐induced cardiotoxicity. While oral nitrate has several beneficial effects on cardiovascular performance, the mechanism(s) underlying these responses remain poorly defined. In skeletal muscle, the oral consumption of nitrate has been shown to have various biological effects that would be advantageous for optimal cardiac performance, including an increase in excitation‐contraction properties and mitochondrial coupling efficiency. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether oral sodium nitrate consumption improved mitochondrial bioenergetics in the hearts of healthy rats. Male Sprague Dawley rats (~ 20 weeks of age) were randomly assigned to a control (n=8) or supplemented group (n=8), which consisted of consuming sodium nitrate in their drinking water (1 g/L) for 7 days. Mitochondrial respiration in permeabilized muscle fibres from the left ventricle showed no changes in leak respiration, maximal substrate‐supported respiration, or ADP sensitivity (apparent K m ) with and without 20 mM creatine and 10 mM phosphocreatine/10 mM creatine. In addition, sodium nitrate supplementation did not alter the rates of mitochondrial H 2 O 2 emission in permeabilized cardiac fibres. Therefore, compared to skeletal muscle, these results suggest that short‐term sodium nitrate does not affect mitochondrial bioenergetics in the heart and additional mechanisms must explain the beneficial effects of consumption on cardiac performance. Support or Funding Information supported by NSERC, Canada
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".