4.4 Article

Is spinal cord isolation a good model of muscle disuse?

Journal

MUSCLE & NERVE
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 312-321

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mus.20706

Keywords

diurnal activity cycles; electromyography; inactivity; skeletal muscle activation; skeletal muscle recruitment

Funding

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS16333] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The patterns of normal daily activity that are required to maintain normal skeletal muscle properties remain unknown. The present study was designed to determine whether spinal cord isolation can be used as a reliable experimental model of neuromuscular inactivity, that is, as a baseline for the absence of activity. Electromyograms (EMGs) were recorded from selected hindlimb muscles of unanesthetized rats over 24-hour periods before and 7, 30, 60, and 90 days after surgical isolation of the lumbar spinal cord. Our data indicate that some rat slow muscle fibers pre-surgery were activated for less than 3 hours per day. Spinal cord isolation (S1) reduced the mean daily integrated EMG (IEMG) and daily EMG duration in the primary slow extensor muscle (soleus) to < 1 % of control, and in the primary fast extensor muscles [medial, gastrocnemius (MG) and vastus lateralis (VL)] to < 2% of control. These parameters were decreased to < 8% and 3% of control, respectively, in a primary fast flexor muscle, the tibialis anterior (TA). From 30 to 90 days post-SI, the mean amplitudes of the spontaneous EMG bursts were relatively normal in the soleus, increased -2-fold in the MG and VL, and increased -4-fold in the TA. Some evidence of the normal antagonistic flexor-extensor relationship was apparent in the brief periods of recorded activity post-SI. These results indicate that SI eliminates nearly all of the normal EMG activity in the hindlimb muscles in the presence of relatively normal muscle innervation and functional intraspinal neural circuitry.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available