ArticleBMC genomics2026
Transcriptional profiling of male mouse muscle across aging stages: a gene ontology analysis of the muscle matreotype.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn humans, skeletal muscle mass and function progressively decline from the age of 30 years, which corresponds to around 6 months in mice, with a markedly increased rate of decline after the age of 65 years, or 20 months in mice. This process is known as sarcopenia. The mechanisms underlying the transition from adulthood to old age remain unclear. This is partly due to the selection of age groups designated as both control and aging cohorts. Only recently has the extracellular matrix (ECM) been proposed as a hallmark of aging, despite remaining relatively understudied, but the 'aging matreotype,' defined as the composition of the matrisome associated with aging, has yet to be defined. This study aims to identify the optimal age range for comparison with elderly subjects to better understand aging-related biological processes and define the muscle aging matreotype.
resultsOver-representation analysis (ORA) and functional class scoring (FCS) were used to compare gene profiling data obtained by microarrays of mouse muscle at 2 (young adult), 11 (mature adult), and 25 (aged) months. The analysis revealed that 82% of gene ontology (GO) terms and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between 2 and 25 months were also present during maturation (2 to 11 months), but not during aging (11 to 25 months). Aging was characterized by distinct biological processes (BPs), including differentially expressed genes (DEGs) shared with maturation but exhibiting opposite directions of expression. Muscle aging was characterized by structural alterations, synaptic transmission changes, and a decline in ECM and angiogenesis-related BPs, alongside increased apoptotic processes linked to ECM. The study introduced the first transcriptomic 'matreotype' of muscle aging, consisting of 58 genes, 95% of which were downregulated.
conclusionThis study emphasized that to capture aging-specific changes, comparisons should focus on aged (20–22 months) vs. mature adult (around 11 months) male mice. This result should be validated in female mice; and the same applies to the identified stages for studying aging in mice (11 and 25 months). They should be validated in humans, where they correspond approximately to 50 and 70 years of age, respectively. This study introduces the first transcriptional matreotype of mammalian aging and advances our understanding of the matrisome's role. Comparison with proteomics studies highlights the need for integrated transcriptomic and proteomic approaches, with protocols adapted to matrisome analysis.
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.