4.6 Article

Effects of aging on muscle T2 relaxation time - Difference between fast- and slow-twitch muscles

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 12, Pages 692-698

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004424-200112000-00003

Keywords

aging; T2 relaxation time; muscle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. To determine whether the T2 relaxation time of skeletal muscle is affected by aging and to compare the effects of aging between fast- and slow-twitch muscles in a human study. To investigate the mechanisms of age-related changes in T2 relaxation time in an animal (mouse) study. METHODS. T2 relaxation times of the soleus (slow-twitch, rich in type I fiber) and gastrocnemius (fast-twitch, rich in type II fiber) muscles were examined in 59 healthy human subjects, 22 to 76 years of age, by clinical magnetic resonance imaging. In mice, T2 relaxation times, fat ratios, and extracellular space ratios (extracellular space/intracellular plus extracellular space) of the spinalis (fast-twitch, rich in type II fiber) muscles were also examined (group of 7 old mice, 24-26 months; group of 7 young mice, 8-10 weeks). RESULTS. In the human study, the T2 relaxation time of the gastrocnemius muscle increased significantly with aging (r = 0.53, P < 0.01) while that of the soleus muscle did not. In the animal study, the T2 relaxation time of the spinalis muscle was significantly longer (P < 0.05) and the extracellular space ratio of the spinalis muscle significantly wider (P < 0.01) in old than in young mice. No significant difference in fat ratio was observed between old and young mice. A significant, positive correlation was seen between the extracellular space ratio and T2 relaxation time (r = 0.84, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS. The T2 relaxation time of fast-twitch muscle increases with aging, due mainly to increased extracellular space, reflecting age-related type II fiber atrophy.

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