4.6 Article

Effects of acute exercise, exercise training, and diabetes on the expression of lymphangiogenic growth factors and lymphatic vessels in skeletal muscle

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00126.2007

关键词

lymphangiogenesis; vascular endothelial growth factor-C; vascular endothelial growth factor-D; vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-3; messenger RNA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blood and lymphatic vessels together form the circulatory system, allowing the passage of fluids and molecules within the body. Recently we showed that lymphatic capillaries are also found in the capillary bed of skeletal muscle. Exercise is known to induce angiogenesis in skeletal muscle, but it is not known whether exercise has effects on lymphangiogenesis or lymphangiogenic growth factors. We studied lymphatic vessel density and expression of the main lymphangiogenic growth factors VEGF-C and VEGF-D and their receptor VEGFR-3 in response to acute running exercise and endurance exercise training in the skeletal muscle of healthy and diabetic mice. VEGF-C mRNA expression increased after the acute exercise bout (P < 0.05) in healthy muscles, but there was no change in diabetic muscles. VEGF-C levels were not changed either in healthy or in diabetic muscle after the exercise training. Neither acute exercise nor exercise training had an effect on the mRNA expression of VEGF-D or VEGFR-3 in healthy or diabetic muscles. Lymphatic vessel density was similar in sedentary and trained mice and was > 10-fold smaller than blood capillary density. Diabetes increased the mRNA expression of VEGF-D (P < 0.01). Increased immunohistochemical staining of VEGF-D was found in degenerative muscle fibers in the diabetic mice. In conclusion, the results suggest that acute exercise or exercise training does not significantly affect lymphangiogenesis in skeletal muscle. Diabetes increased the expression of VEGF-D in skeletal muscle, and this increase may be related to muscle fiber damage.

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