Mitochondrial bioenergetics are not associated with myofibrillar protein synthesis rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mitochondria represent key organelles influencing cellular homeostasis and have been implicated in the signalling events regulating protein synthesis. Methods We examined whether mitochondrial bioenergetics (oxidative phosphorylation and reactive oxygen species (H2O2) emission, ROS) measured in vitro in permeabilized muscle fibres represent regulatory factors for integrated daily muscle protein synthesis rates and skeletal muscle mass changes across the spectrum of physical activity, including free‐living and bed‐rest conditions: n = 19 healthy, young men (26 ± 4 years, 23.4 ± 3.3 kg/m2) and following 12 weeks of resistance‐type exercise training: n = 10 healthy older men (70 ± 3 years, 25.2 ± 2.1 kg/m2). Additionally, we evaluated the direct relationship between attenuated mitochondrial ROS emission and integrated daily myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis rates in genetically modified mice (mitochondrial‐targeted catalase, MCAT). Results Neither oxidative phosphorylation nor H2O2 emission were associated with muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy young men under free‐living conditions or following 1 week of bed rest (both P > 0.05). Greater increases in GSSG concentration were associated with greater skeletal muscle mass loss following bed rest (r = −0.49, P < 0.05). In older men, only submaximal mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (corrected for mitochondrial content) was positively associated with myofibrillar protein synthesis rates during exercise training (r = 0.72, P < 0.05). However, changes in oxidative phosphorylation and H2O2 emission were not associated with changes in skeletal muscle mass following training (both P > 0.05). Additionally, MCAT mice displayed no differences in myofibrillar (2.62 ± 0.22 vs. 2.75 ± 0.15%/day) and sarcoplasmic (3.68 ± 0.35 vs. 3.54 ± 0.35%/day) protein synthesis rates when compared with wild‐type mice (both P > 0.05). Conclusions Mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and reactive oxygen emission do not seem to represent key factors regulating muscle protein synthesis or muscle mass regulation across the spectrum of physical activity.
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) | 0.002 | 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".