4.8 Article

Burn injury causes mitochondrial dysfunction in skeletal muscle

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0501211102

关键词

mitochondria; mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation; muscle dysfunction; nuclear magnetic resonance

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK040561-10, P30 DK040561] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [P50 GM 021700, U54 GM062119, P50 GM021700, U54 GM 062119] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe burn trauma is generally followed by a catabolic response that leads to muscle wasting and weakness affecting skeletal musculature. Here, we perform whole-genome expression and in vivo NMR spectroscopy studies to define respectively the full set of burn-induced changes in skeletal muscle gene expression and the role of mitochondria in the altered energy expenditure exhibited by burn patients. Our results show 1,136 genes differentially expressed in a mouse hind limb burn model and identify expression pattern changes of genes involved in muscle development, protein degradation and biosynthesis, inflammation, and mitochondrial energy and metabolism. To assess further the role of mitochondria in burn injury, we performed in Vivo P-31 NMR spectroscopy on hind limb skeletal muscle, to noninvasively measure high-energy phosphates and the effect of magnetization transfer on inorganic phosphate (P-i) and phosphocreatine (PCr) resonances during saturation of gamma ATP resonance, mediated by the ATP synthesis reactions. Although local burn injury does not alter high-energy phosphates or pH, apart from PCr reduction, it does significantly reduce the rate of ATP synthesis, to further implicate a role for mitochondria in burn trauma. These results, in conjunction with our genomic results showing down-regulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation and related functions, strongly suggest alterations in mitochondrial-directed energy expenditure reactions, advancing our understanding of skeletal muscle dysfunction suffered by burn injury patients.

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

4.8
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