Skeletal muscle amino acid pool following the administration of Doxorubicin chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of Doxorubicin (DOX) administration on the skeletal muscle amino acids. Male Sprague Dawley rats received either a 1.5 or 4.5 mg/kg dose of DOX and grouped into endpoints every 24 hrs up to 192 hrs. Total amino acids (TAA), essential amino acids (EAA) and branched‐chain amino acids (BCAA) were quantified in the plantaris (PLANT), white gastrocnemius (WG) and soleus (SOL) muscle groups. Following the administration of either 1.5 or 4.5 mg/kg dose, TAA concentrations in each muscle group were significantly increased throughout the experiment when compared to control. However, there were no consistent differences in TAA concentrations when compared between doses. These results were also observed in the EAA concentrations. Subsequent to the administration of the 1.5 mg/kg dose, BCAA were significantly increased in the PLANT, WG and SOL after 48 hrs, compared to control. Similarly, the 4.5 mg/kg dose increased BCAA after 48 hrs compared to control but returned to baseline after 120, 72 and 168 hrs in the PLANT, WG and SOL, respectively. To our knowledge, these data represent for the first time the effect of DOX administration on amino acid availability in skeletal muscle. As such, this study provides important insight in the role of DOX therapy on amino acid metabolism. Support or Funding Information Supported by NSERC.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".