4.3 Review

Linking Cancer Cachexia-Induced Anabolic Resistance to Skeletal Muscle Oxidative Metabolism

Journal

OXIDATIVE MEDICINE AND CELLULAR LONGEVITY
Volume 2017, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8018197

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute) [R01 CA-121249]
  2. National Institutes of Health (National Institute of General Medical Science) [P20 RR-017698]
  3. Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of South Carolina
  4. ACSM Foundation Research Grant from American College of Sports Medicine Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer cachexia, a wasting syndrome characterized by skeletal muscle depletion, contributes to increased patient morbidity and mortality. While the intricate balance between protein synthesis and breakdown regulates skeletal muscle mass, the suppression of basal protein synthesis may not account for the severe wasting induced by cancer. Therefore, recent research has shifted to the regulation of anabolic resistance, which is the impaired ability of nutrition and exercise to stimulate protein synthesis. Emerging evidence suggests that oxidative metabolism can regulate both basal and induced muscle protein synthesis. While disrupted protein turnover and oxidative metabolism in cachectic muscle have been examined independently, evidence suggests a linkage between these processes for the regulation of cancer-induced wasting. The primary objective of this review is to highlight the connection between dysfunctional oxidative metabolism and cancer-induced anabolic resistance in skeletal muscle. First, we review oxidative metabolism regulation of muscle protein synthesis. Second, we describe cancer-induced alterations in the response to an anabolic stimulus. Finally, we review a role for exercise to inhibit cancer-induced anabolic suppression and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available