MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399703322 · doi:10.1113/jp285870

Resting membrane potential and intracellular [Na<sup>+</sup>] at rest, during fatigue and during recovery in rat soleus muscle fibres <i>in situ</i>

2024· article· en· W4399703322 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael I. Lindinger, Simeon P. Cairns, Ole M. Sejersted

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIon channel regulation and function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAnders Jahres Fond til Vitenskapens Fremme
KeywordsStimulationIsometric exerciseMuscle fatigueChemistrySoleus muscleIntracellularBiophysicsResting potentialMembrane potentialSodiumAnatomyInternal medicineSkeletal muscleMedicineBiologyNeuroscienceElectromyographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Large trans‐sarcolemmal ionic shifts occur with fatiguing exercise or stimulation of isolated muscles. However, it is unknown how resting membrane potential (EM) and intracellular sodium concentration ([Na+]i) change with repeated contractions in living mammals. We investigated (i) whether [Na+]i (peak, kinetics) can reveal changes of Na+–K+ pump activity during brief or fatiguing stimulation and (ii) how resting EM and [Na+]i change during fatigue and recovery of rat soleus muscle in situ. Muscles of anaesthetised rats were stimulated with brief (10 s) or repeated tetani (60 Hz for 200 ms, every 2 s, for 30 s or 300 s) with isometric force measured. Double‐barrelled ion‐sensitive microelectrodes were used to quantify resting EM and [Na+]i. Post‐stimulation data were fitted using polynomials and back‐extrapolated to time zero recovery. Mean pre‐stimulation resting EM (layer 2–7 fibres) was −71 mV (surface fibres were more depolarised), and [Na+]i was 14 mM. With deeper fibres, 10 s stimulation (2–150 Hz) increased [Na+]i to 38–46 mM whilst simultaneously causing hyperpolarisations (7.3 mV for 2–90 Hz). Fatiguing stimulation for 30 s or 300 s led to end‐stimulation resting EM of −61 to −53 mV, which recovered rapidly (T1/2, 8–22 s). Mean end‐stimulation [Na+]i increased to 86–101 mM with both fatigue protocols and the [Na+]i recovery time‐course (T1/2, 21–35 s) showed no difference between protocols. These combined findings suggest that brief stimulation hyperpolarises the resting EM, likely via maximum Na+‐induced stimulation of the Na+–K+ pump. Repeated tetani caused massive depolarisation and elevations of [Na+]i that together lower force, although they likely interact with other factors to cause fatigue. [Na+]i recovery kinetics provided no evidence of impaired Na+–K+ pump activity with fatigue. image Key points It is uncertain how resting membrane potential, intracellular sodium concentration ([Na+]i), and sodium–potassium (Na+–K+) pump activity change during repeated muscle contractions in living mammals. For rat soleus muscle fibres in situ, brief tetanic stimulation for 10 s led to raised [Na+]i, anticipated to evoke maximal Na+‐induced stimulation of the Na+–K+ pump causing an immediate hyperpolarisation of the sarcolemma. More prolonged stimulation with repeated tetanic contractions causes massive elevations of [Na+]i, which together with large depolarisations (via K+ disturbances) likely reduce force production. These effects occurred without impairment of Na+–K+ pump function. Together these findings suggest that rapid activation of the Na+–K+ pump occurs with brief stimulation to maintain excitability, whereas more prolonged stimulation causes rundown of the trans‐sarcolemmal K+ gradient (hence depolarisation) and Na+ gradient, which in combination can impair contraction to contribute to fatigue in living mammals.

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 score0.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiology→Same topicIon channel regulation and function→French-language works237,207→