4.6 Article

Differences in Muscle Protein Synthesis and Anabolic Signaling in the Postabsorptive State and in Response to Food in 65-80 Year Old Men and Women

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001875

关键词

-

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [AR 49869, AG 025501, RR 00036, RR 00954, DK 56341]
  2. University of Nottingham
  3. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/XX510697/1, BB/C516779/1]
  4. European Union EXEGENESIS program
  5. Research Councils UK fellow
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C516779/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Women have less muscle than men but lose it more slowly during aging. To discover potential underlying mechanism(s) for this we evaluated the muscle protein synthesis process in postabsorptive conditions and during feeding in twenty-nine 65-80 year old men (n = 13) and women (n = 16). We discovered that the basal concentration of phosphorylated eEF2(Thr56) was similar to 40% less (P < 0.05) and the basal rate of MPS was similar to 30% greater (P = 0.02) in women than in men; the basal concentrations of muscle phosphorylated Akt(Thr308), p70s6k(Thr389), eIF4E(Ser209), and eIF4E-BP1(Thr37/46) were not different between the sexes. Feeding increased (P < 0.05) Akt(Thr308) and p70s6k(Thr389) phosphorylation to the same extent in men and women but increased (P < 0.05) the phosphorylation of eIF4E(Ser209) and eIF4E-BP1(Thr37/46) in men only. Accordingly, feeding increased MPS in men (P < 0.01) but not in women. The postabsorptive muscle mRNA concentrations for myoD and myostatin were not different between sexes; feeding doubled myoD mRNA (P < 0.05) and halved that of myostatin (P < 0.05) in both sexes. Thus, there is sexual dimorphism in MPS and its control in older adults; a greater basal rate of MPS, operating over most of the day may partially explain the slower loss of muscle in older women.

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