ArticleCureus2018
Molecular Mechanism of Ischaemic Preconditioning of Skeletal Muscle In Vitro.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of ischemic pre-conditioning on electrically stimulated contractions.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Article
- Multifunctionally disordered TiOTheranostics · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) is a phenomenon whereby tissues develop an increased tolerance to ischaemia and subsequent reperfusion if first subjected to sublethal periods of ischaemia. Despite extensive investigation of IPC, the molecular mechanism remains largely unknown. Our aim was to show genetic changes that occur in skeletal muscle cells in response to IPC. Methods We established an in vitro model of IPC using a human skeletal muscle cell line. Gene expression of both control and preconditioned cells at various time points was determined. The genes examined were hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF-1 alpha), early growth response 1 (EGR1), JUN, and FOS. HIF-1 alpha is a marker of hypoxia. EGR1, JUN, and FOS are early response genes and may play a role in the protective responses induced by IPC. Results HIF-1 alpha was upregulated following one and two hours of simulated ischaemia (p = 0.076 and 0.841, respectively) verifying that hypoxic conditions were met using our model. Expression of EGR1 and FOS was upregulated and peaked after one hour of hypoxia (p = 0.001 and <0.00, respectively). cFOS was upregulated at two and three hours of hypoxia. IPC prior to simulated hypoxia resulted in a greater level of upregulation of EGR1, JUN and FOS genes (p = <0.00, 0.047, and <0.00 respectively). Conclusion This study has supported the use of our hypoxic model for studying IPC in vitro. IPC results in a greater upregulation of protective genes in skeletal muscle cells exposed to hypoxia than in control cells. We have demonstrated hitherto unknown molecular mechanisms of IPC in cell culture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.