R Fernandez-Gonzalo1, T R Lundberg, P A Tesch. 1. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIM: This study assessed and compared acute muscle molecular responses before and after 5-week training, employing either aerobic (AE) and resistance exercise (RE) or RE only. METHODS: Ten men performed one-legged RE, while the contralateral limb performed AE followed by RE 6 h later (AE+RE). Before (untrained) and after (trained) the intervention, acute bouts of RE were performed with or without preceding AE. Biopsies were obtained from m. vastus lateralis of each leg pre- and 3 h post-RE to determine mRNA levels of VEGF, PGC-1α, MuRF-1, atrogin-1, myostatin and phosphorylation of mTOR, p70S6K, rpS6 and eEF2. RESULTS: PGC-1α and VEGF expression increased (P < 0.05) after acute RE in the untrained, but not the trained state. These markers showed greater response after AE+RE than RE in either condition. Myostatin was lower after AE+RE than RE, both before and after training. AE+RE showed higher MuRF-1 and atrogin-1 expression than RE in the untrained, not the trained state. Exercise increased (P < 0.05) p70S6K phosphorylation both before and after training, yet this increase tended to be more prominent for AE+RE than RE before training. Phosphorylation of p70S6K was greater in trained muscle. Changes in these markers did not correlate with exercise-induced alterations in strength or muscle size. CONCLUSION: Concurrent exercise in untrained skeletal muscle prompts global molecular responses consistent with resulting whole muscle adaptations. Yet, training blunts the more robust anabolic response shown after AE+RE compared with RE. This study challenges the concept that single molecular markers could predict training-induced changes in muscle size or strength.
AIM: This study assessed and compared acute muscle molecular responses before and after 5-week training, employing either aerobic (AE) and resistance exercise (RE) or RE only. METHODS: Ten men performed one-legged RE, while the contralateral limb performed AE followed by RE 6 h later (AE+RE). Before (untrained) and after (trained) the intervention, acute bouts of RE were performed with or without preceding AE. Biopsies were obtained from m. vastus lateralis of each leg pre- and 3 h post-RE to determine mRNA levels of VEGF, PGC-1α, MuRF-1, atrogin-1, myostatin and phosphorylation of mTOR, p70S6K, rpS6 and eEF2. RESULTS: PGC-1α and VEGF expression increased (P < 0.05) after acute RE in the untrained, but not the trained state. These markers showed greater response after AE+RE than RE in either condition. Myostatin was lower after AE+RE than RE, both before and after training. AE+RE showed higher MuRF-1 and atrogin-1 expression than RE in the untrained, not the trained state. Exercise increased (P < 0.05) p70S6K phosphorylation both before and after training, yet this increase tended to be more prominent for AE+RE than RE before training. Phosphorylation of p70S6K was greater in trained muscle. Changes in these markers did not correlate with exercise-induced alterations in strength or muscle size. CONCLUSION: Concurrent exercise in untrained skeletal muscle prompts global molecular responses consistent with resulting whole muscle adaptations. Yet, training blunts the more robust anabolic response shown after AE+RE compared with RE. This study challenges the concept that single molecular markers could predict training-induced changes in muscle size or strength.
Authors: Tommy R Lundberg; Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalo; Per A Tesch; Eric Rullman; Thomas Gustafsson Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Nathan Hodson; Daniel W D West; Andrew Philp; Nicholas A Burd; Daniel R Moore Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: R A Dennis; K K Garner; P M Kortebein; C M Parkes; M M Bopp; S Li; K P Padala; P R Padala; D H Sullivan Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: S Maynard; G Keijzers; A-M Hansen; M Osler; D Molbo; L Bendix; P Møller; S Loft; M Moreno-Villanueva; A Bürkle; C P Hvitby; S H Schurman; T Stevnsner; L J Rasmussen; K Avlund; V A Bohr Journal: Acta Physiol (Oxf) Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 6.311
Authors: Douglas W Van Pelt; Amy L Confides; Sarah M Abshire; Emily R Hunt; Esther E Dupont-Versteegden; Timothy A Butterfield Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: T W Jones; L Eddens; J Kupusarevic; D C M Simoes; M J W Furber; K A van Someren; G Howatson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: M S Brook; D J Wilkinson; B E Phillips; J Perez-Schindler; A Philp; K Smith; P J Atherton Journal: Acta Physiol (Oxf) Date: 2015-06-21 Impact factor: 6.311