4.7 Article

Long-term caloric restriction abrogates the age-related decline in skeletal muscle aerobic function

Journal

FASEB JOURNAL
Volume 19, Issue 8, Pages 1320-+

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1096/fj.04-3535fje

Keywords

aging; oxygen uptake; mitochondria; rats; sarcopenia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of long-term caloric restriction (CR) on the age-associated decline of skeletal muscle aerobic function. Skeletal muscle maximal aerobic performance (VO(2)max) was assessed in ad libitum (AL) and CR rats aged 8-10 months and 35 months using a pump-perfused hindlimb model to match oxygen delivery to muscle mass between groups. Whereas there was a 46% decline in muscle mass- specific VO2max between 8 10 mo (524 +/- 13 mu mol center dot min(-1)similar to 100 g(-1); mean SE) and 35 mo (281 +/- 54 mu mol(.)min(-1)center dot 100 g(- 1)) in AL rats, not only did CR rats begin at the same point in 8-10 mo old rats (490 +/- 42 mu mol center dot min(-1)center dot 100 g(-1)), we found no decline in 35 mo old CR animals (484 +/- 49 mu mol center dot min(-1)center dot 100g(-1)). Interestingly, although most markers of oxidative capacity began at a lower point in young adult CR animals, CR rats exhibited a higher in situ activity of complex IV at VO2max. This activity allows the young adult CR animals to exhibit normal aerobic capacity despite the lower oxidative enzyme activities. In stark contrast to the 19-41% decline in activities of citrate synthase, complexes I-III, and complex IV in homogenates prepared from the plantaris muscle and mixed region of gastrocnemius muscle with aging in AL rats, no age-related decline was found in CR animals. Thus, our results showed that CR preserves aerobic function in aged skeletal muscles by facilitating a higher in situ function of complex IV and by preventing the age-related decline in mitochondrial oxidative capacity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available