4.3 Article

Physiological, histological and biochemical properties of rat skeletal muscles in response to hindlimb suspension

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 276-283

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.10.001

关键词

hindlimb suspension; skeletal rat muscles; electrophysiology; histology; biochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous study.. we found that the reduced exercise-induced production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) reported in slow-oxidative muscle of hypoxemic rats and also in chronic hypoxemic patients did not simply result from deconditioning. In control rats and after a 3-week period of hindlimb suspension (HS), the slow-oxidative (Soleus, SOL) and fast-glycolytic skeletal muscles (Extensor digitorum longus, EDL) were sampled. We determined the response to direct muscle stimulation (twitch stimulation (TS), Maximal force (Fmax)), twitch amplitude and maximal relaxation rate, tetanic frequency, endurance to fatigue after muscle stimulation (MS), the different fibre types based on their myofibrillar adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) activity, and the intra-muscular redox status (Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Sustances: TBARS, reduced glutathione: GSH, reduced ascorbic acid: RAA). After the 3-w HS period: (1) the contractile properties were modified in SOL only (reduced Fmax and twitch amplitude, increased tetanic frequency); (2) the fibre typology was modified in both muscles (in SOL: increased proportion of IIa and IIc fibres, in EDL: increased proportion of IId/x fibres but decreased proportion of IIb fibres); and (3) only in SOL, the TBARS level increased and the GSH and RAA concentrations decreased at rest and after fatiguing MS. Thus, HS accentuates the exercise-induced ROS production in slow-oxidative muscle in a direction opposite to that measured in chronic hypoxemic rats. This strongly suggests that hypoxemia reduces the ROS production independently from any muscle disuse. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据