The role of C-C chemokine receptor 1 in skeletal muscle regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diaphragmatic myotubes are known to constitutively express CCR1, a chemokine receptor in the C-C chemokine family, when cultured in vitro. It has been shown that CCR1 and its ligand CCL3 (MIP-1α) are directly involved in muscle repair responses in vitro. Furthermore, in vivo experiments, carried out in the MDX mouse model of muscular dystrophy, showed that these molecules were up-regulated in the dystrophic diaphragm muscle thus suggesting a role for CCR1 in inflammation and muscle healing. In this study, indeed, the role of CCR1 was investigated, with focus on inflammatory cell infiltration within the injured muscle using the freeze injury murine model. This study suggested that there is no significant difference in muscle regeneration or infiltration between CCR1-/- mice and their wild-type controls. There was also no difference in the muscle force between the knockout and their controls at 3, 7, and 14 days post injury. Investigation of individual infiltrating cell (macrophage, CD4 T-cells, CD8 T-cells) populations in the injured tissue yielded no significant difference. These data suggest that, although CCR1 has been found to play a role in myoblast proliferation and migration in vitro, it does not seem to have any apparent effect on muscle regeneration in vivo in the context of the freeze-injury model.
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 | 0.001 |
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".