MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Expression of the Dystrophin‐Associated Protein Complex in the Absence of Skeletal Muscle AMPK

2016· article· en· W4389010908 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Athan G. Dial, James Lally, Adam L. Bujak, Gregory R. Steinberg, Vladimir Ljubicic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUtrophinDystrophinAMPKChemistryCell biologyProtein kinase ASarcolemmaSkeletal muscleMolecular biologyPhosphorylationBiologyMyocyteEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dystrophin‐associated protein complex (DAPC) is composed of proteins that are highly expressed along the sarcolemma. The DAPC provides a mechanical link between the intracellular cytoskeleton and extracellular matrix, as well as a signal transduction apparatus from the periphery to the interior of muscle fibers. The signalling molecule AMP‐activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a powerful regulator of phenotypic plasticity. Recent evidence has shown that chronic AMPK activation alters the expression of DAPC components. However, a more comprehensive understanding of the influence of AMPK on the DAPC is lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the role of AMPK in the expression of the DAPC. Extensor digitorum longus (EDL) and soleus (SOL) muscles representing fast glycolytic and slow oxidative tissues, respectively, were obtained from wild‐type (WT) mice, as well as from mice deficient in both isoforms of the AMPK‐β subunit in skeletal muscle (AMPK‐MKO). RT‐PCR and Western blotting measured mRNA and protein content of DAPC components, respectively. In WT animals, utrophin and laminin mRNA expression, as well as laminin and β‐dystroglycan protein content were ~25–60% higher (p < 0.05) in the SOL versus EDL muscle. In contrast, neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) mRNA was 60% lower in SOL. The AMPK‐MKO animals displayed a different pattern of fiber‐type specific expression of DAPC components. In these mice, laminin, γ‐sarcoglycan (SG), dystrophin, and utrophin transcripts, as well as dystrophin and utrophin protein expression were 40–55% greater (p < 0.05) in the SOL versus the EDL. β‐SG and nNOS mRNA content were lower in the EDL muscle of AMPK‐MKO mice, as compared to their WT counterparts. We also assessed the expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor coactivator‐1α (PGC‐1α) and Ca 2+ /calmodulin dependent protein kinase II (CAMKII), factors that contribute to the upstream regulation of the DAPC. PGC‐1α mRNA content was higher in SOL relative to EDL muscles of both genotypes. CAMKIIα protein expression was significantly lower in SOL muscles versus EDL muscles of WT and AMPK‐MKO, while CAMKIIβ exhibited the opposite pattern. PGC‐1α mRNA tended to be higher in the muscles from AMPK‐MKO mice compared to WT animals. Conversely, CAMKII mRNA content tended to be reduced in the AMPK‐MKO muscles, as compared to WT. These data indicate a fiber‐type specificity to DAPC expression in skeletal muscle. Furthermore, AMPK deficiency results in a differential profile of DAPC components, as well as in alternations in the expression of alternative upstream DAPC regulators. Our results suggest that AMPK contributes to the expression profile of the DAPC. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Canada Research Chairs

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMuscle Physiology and Disorders→French-language works237,207→