4.6 Article

Alterations in peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor mRNA expression in skeletal muscle after acute and repeated bouts of exercise

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 332, 期 1-2, 页码 225-231

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-009-0195-1

关键词

Muscle; Exercise; Training; mRNA

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL 40306-15, HL 72790-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) exist in three different forms, alpha (alpha), beta/delta (beta/delta), or gamma (gamma), all of which are expressed in skeletal muscle and play a critical role in the regulation of oxidative metabolism. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the mRNA expression pattern of the different PPARs and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha coactivator-1 alpha (PGC-1 alpha) in muscles that largely rely on either glycolytic (plantaris) or oxidative (soleus) metabolism. Further, we also examined the alterations in the PPARs mRNA expression after one bout of endurance exercise or after 12 weeks of exercise training in the different muscles. Female Sprague-Dawley rats (5-8 months) were either run on the treadmill once or exercised trained for 12 weeks. The muscles were removed 24 h after the last bout of exercise. The results demonstrated with the exception of PPAR beta/delta, the PPAR mRNAs are expressed to a greater extent in the soleus muscle than in the plantaris muscle in sedentary animals. PPAR gamma was the least abundantly expressed PPAR in either the soleus or the plantaris muscle. With respect to exercise training, only PPAR gamma mRNA expression increased in the soleus muscle, while PPAR beta/delta and gamma mRNA levels increased in the plantaris muscle. Minimal changes were detected in any of the PPARs with one bout of exercise training. These results suggest that PPAR gamma mRNA levels are the lowest in skeletal muscle among all of the PPARs and PPAR gamma mRNA is the most responsive to changes in physical activity levels.

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

4.6
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