ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2026
Deuterium-Oxide Labelling Proteomics Illustrates the Importance of Sample Timing and the Limitations of Serial Biopsies.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring in vivo protein synthesis is important for testing how interventions, disease and ageing remodel the proteome. A limitation of approaches using short-term infusions of labelled amino acids was that long-term changes had to be extrapolated from short-term measurements. Deuterium oxide (D
methodsTo test this hypothesis, we used a five-timepoint (0d, 4d, 15d, 30d and 45d) D
resultsIn a 4-day period representing a baseline period, the synthesis rate of summed proteins was 2.09%/day. When the period was extended to 15, 30 or 45 days, the synthesis rates of summed proteins declined to 1.64%, 1.31% and 1.10%/day, respectively. The contribution of slow and fast proteins to these rates changed as a function of time. The fast and slow proteins accounted for 4.3% and 34.0% of measured proteome abundance, respectively. From Day 0 to Day 4, fast and slow proteins contributed 19.8% and 20.2% of the calculated FSR, respectively. By Day 45, these contributions shifted to 6.5% and 28.8%. Further, we demonstrated that the assumption that the fraction new of proteins linearly increases to 100% new is not true for the majority of proteins. Instead, most proteins plateaued at some point less than 100%, which stops their individual contribution to a summed protein synthesis rate.
conclusionsIn continuous long-term labelling studies, biopsy timing changes the measured bulk FSR because the relative contributions of individual proteins to that measurement over time. Fast proteins that plateau early decrease their contribution as labelling time increases. These findings indicate that studies with different labelling periods, or multiple biopsies over time during continuous labelling of days to weeks cannot be compared to biopsies taken at other times in the labelling period.
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.