4.5 Article

Differences in age-related alterations in muscle contraction properties in rat tongue and hindlimb

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 818-827

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/059)

Keywords

aging; tongue; extensor digitorum longus; muscle contraction

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC008149-02, R01 DC005935, R01 DC005935-05, R01DC005935, R01 DC008149, R01DC008149] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Because of differences in muscle architecture and biomechanics, the purpose of this study was to determine whether muscle contractile properties of rat hindlimb and tongue were differentially affected by aging. Method: Deep peroneal and hypoglossal nerves were stimulated in 6 young and 7 old Fischer 344-Brown Norway rats to allow recording of muscle contractile properties of tongue and extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle in the hindlimb. In the same animals, the following measurements were made: (a) twitch contraction time (CT; in milliseconds), (b) half decay time (HDT; in milliseconds), (c) maximum twitch force (in grams), (d) tetanic force, and (e) fatigue index determined from repetitive stimulation of the muscles. Results: No significant differences were observed in young versus old groups in retrusive tongue forces, whereas a significant (p < .05) decrement in EDL tetanic forces was found in old rats. Slower CT in old rats was observed only in the tongue. Old and young groups were not significantly different in fatigue index or HDT for tongue or EDL. Conclusions: Old animals generated equivalent maximum tongue forces with stimulation, but they were slower in achieving these forces than young animals. Limb and cranial muscles were not affected equally by aging. As such, information derived from limb muscle studies may not easily generalize to the cranial motor system.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available