4.6 Article

A sex-specific association of leukocyte telomere length with thigh muscle mass

期刊

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2023-0211

关键词

leukocyte telomere length; lean mass; muscle mass; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relationship between leukocyte telomere length (LTL), thigh muscle mass, and adipose tissue distribution. The results showed a significant association between LTL and thigh muscle mass in healthy males, but not in females. The sex-specific association may be related to different training effects and/or hormonal pathways in men and women.
Objectives: Telomeres are DNA-protein complexes at the ends of linear chromosomes that protect against DNA degradation. Telomeres shorten during normal cell divisions and therefore, telomere length is an indicator of mitotic-cell age. In humans, telomere shortening is a potential biomarker for disease risk, progression and premature death. Physical activity has been associated with longer leukocyte telomere length (LTL) in some studies. In the current study the relationship between LTL, thigh muscle mass and adipose tissue distribution was explored.Methods: We performed anthropometric measurements and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements of the thigh in 149 healthy subjects (77 male, 72 female). LTL was measured using qPCR. Additionally, the subjects answered a questionnaire concerning their training behaviour.Results: In male subjects, LTL was significantly associated with thigh muscle mass, independent of age and body mass index (p=0.006). In addition, a slight association of LTL with weekly endurance units in the male group was found. These relations could not be observed in females.Conclusions: In conclusion, we observed a sex-specific association of LTL and thigh muscle mass in healthy males. The reason of this sex-specific association is currently unclear, but could be related to different training effects and/or hormonal pathways in men and 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