ArticlePloS one2024
Comparative evaluation of different modalities for measuring in vivo carnosine levels.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of carnosine supplementation on physical endurance: a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Carnosine is an endogenous di-peptide (β-alanine -L- histidine) involved in maintaining tissue homeostasis. It is most abundant in skeletal muscle where its concentration has been determined in biopsy samples using tandem mass spectrometry (MS-MS). Carnosine levels can also be assessed in intact leg muscles by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) or in blood and urine samples using mass spectrometry. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain how carnosine levels from these distinct compartments are correlated with each other when measured in the same individual. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement modality might be most suitable for large-scale clinical studies. Hence, in 31 healthy volunteers, we assessed carnosine levels in skeletal muscle, via 1H-MRS, and in erythrocytes and urine by MS-MS. While muscle carnosine levels were higher in males (C2 peak, p = 0.010; C4 peak, p = 0.018), there was no sex-associated difference in urinary (p = 0.433) or erythrocyte (p = 0.858) levels. In a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex, race, and diet, there was a positive association between erythrocyte and urinary carnosine. However, no association was observed between 1H-MRS and erythrocytes or urinary measures. In the relationship between muscle versus urinary and erythrocyte measures, females had a positive association, while males did not show any association. We also found that 1H-MRS measures were highly sensitive to location of measurement. Thus, it is uncertain whether 1H-MRS can accurately and reliably predict endogenous carnosine levels. In contrast, urinary and erythrocyte carnosine measures may be stable and in greater synchrony, and given financial and logistical concerns, may be a feasible alternative for large-scale clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.