4.5 Article

Myosteatosis and myofibrosis: Relationship with aging, inflammation and insulin resistance

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 411-416

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2013.06.001

关键词

Muscle quality; Fat infiltration; Fibrosis; Aging

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA AG004050-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms impairing muscle quality and leading to myofibrosis (MF) and myosteatosis (MS) are incompletely known. In biopsies of paraspinous muscle (PM) of 16 elderly men undergoing elective vertebral surgery, we histologically determined the area of MF and MS expressed as muscle quality index (MQI), in order to investigate the relation between them, as well as the main predictors of muscle quality. Total PM area and intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) were evaluated by MRI and body composition by DXA. Circulating fasting glucose, insulin, hs-CRP, leptin, adiponectin and IL-6 were measured and HOMA index calculated. Quantification of gene expression in PM and in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) overlying the muscle was performed by rt-PCR. The degree of MS and MF was significantly and positively related to each other and positively associated with BMI, waist, FM and FM% as well as with IMAT. The area of PM was negatively related with MF even after adjustment for weight. Leptin was positively associated with MF and MS, whereas hs-CRP to MF. In backward regression analyses, larger waist and smaller PM area explained 90% of MF variance, whereas leptin about 80% of MS variance. IL-6 expression in SAT was significantly higher in participants with higher MQI values. In PM biopsies we found significantly higher expression of SOCS-3 and a trend toward higher expression of myostatin with greater degrees of MQI. MS and MF are related phenomena that concur to alter muscle quality and both should be considered in further studies on the evolution of sarcopenia. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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