4.6 Article

Single Muscle Fiber Gene Expression with Run Taper

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108547

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG 038576]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated gene expression changes in gastrocnemius slow-twitch myosin heavy chain I (MHC I) and fast-twitch (MHC IIa) muscle fibers of collegiate cross-country runners (n = 6, 20 +/- 1 y, VO2max= 70 +/- 1 ml.kg(-1).min(-1)) during two distinct training phases. In a controlled environment, runners performed identical 8 kilometer runs (30:18 +/- 0:30 min:s, 89 +/- 1% HRmax) while in heavy training (similar to 72 km/wk) and following a 3 wk taper. Training volume during the taper leading into peak competition was reduced similar to 50% which resulted in improved race times and greater cross-section and improved function of MHC IIa fibers. Single muscle fibers were isolated from pre and 4 hour post run biopsies in heavily trained and tapered states to examine the dynamic acute exercise response of the growth-related genes Fibroblast growth factor-inducible 14 (FN14), Myostatin (MSTN), Heat shock protein 72 (HSP72), Muscle ring-finger protein-1 (MURF1), Myogenic factor 6 (MRF4), and Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) via qPCR. FN14 increased 4.3-fold in MHC IIa fibers with exercise in the tapered state (P<0.05). MSTN was suppressed with exercise in both fiber types and training states (P<0.05) while MURF1 and HSP72 responded to running in MHC IIa and I fibers, respectively, regardless of training state (P<0.05). Robust induction of FN14 (previously shown to strongly correlate with hypertrophy) and greater overall transcriptional flexibility with exercise in the tapered state provides an initial molecular basis for fast-twitch muscle fiber performance gains previously observed after taper in competitive endurance athletes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available