| Literature DB >> 25104935 |
Helmut Kern1, Laura Barberi2, Stefan Löfler3, Simona Sbardella2, Samantha Burggraf3, Hannah Fruhmann3, Ugo Carraro4, Simone Mosole4, Nejc Sarabon5, Michael Vogelauer6, Winfried Mayr7, Matthias Krenn7, Jan Cvecka8, Vanina Romanello9, Laura Pietrangelo10, Feliciano Protasi10, Marco Sandri9, Sandra Zampieri11, Antonio Musaro12.
Abstract
The loss in muscle mass coupled with a decrease in specific force and shift in fiber composition are hallmarks of aging. Training and regular exercise attenuate the signs of sarcopenia. However, pathologic conditions limit the ability to perform physical exercise. We addressed whether electrical stimulation (ES) is an alternative intervention to improve muscle recovery and defined the molecular mechanism associated with improvement in muscle structure and function. We analyzed, at functional, structural, and molecular level, the effects of ES training on healthy seniors with normal life style, without routine sport activity. ES was able to improve muscle torque and functional performances of seniors and increased the size of fast muscle fibers. At molecular level, ES induced up-regulation of IGF-1 and modulation of MuRF-1, a muscle-specific atrophy-related gene. ES also induced up-regulation of relevant markers of differentiating satellite cells and of extracellular matrix remodeling, which might guarantee shape and mechanical forces of trained skeletal muscle as well as maintenance of satellite cell function, reducing fibrosis. Our data provide evidence that ES is a safe method to counteract muscle decline associated with aging.Entities:
Keywords: IGF-1; aging; electrical stimulation; extracellular matrix; microRNA; muscle atrophy; muscle performance; satellite cells
Year: 2014 PMID: 25104935 PMCID: PMC4109438 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Force measurements and functional tests of seniors with muscle weakness before and after ES training.
| Pre | Post | Improvement | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Torque (Nm/kg) | 1.42 ± 0.34 | 1.51 ± 0.38 | 6.0 ± 4.9 | |
| TUGT (s) | 8.42 ± 1.95 | 7.04 ± 1.09 | -16.4 ± 6.1 | |
| 5×chair rise (s) | 13.85 ± 3.33 | 10.53 ± 3.63 | -23.9 ± 8.6 | |
| SPPB score | 10.06 ± 1.39 | 11.19 ± 1.22 | 11.2 ± 6.8 | |
| Stair test (s) | 15.09 ± 3.48 | 11.90 ± 2.32 | -21.1 ± 10.8 | |
| 10 m test habitual (m/s) | 1.20 ± 0.19 | 1.26 ± 0.18 | 5.3 ± 4.6 | |
| 10 m test fast (m/s) | 1.58 ± 0.28 | 1.66 ± 0.24 | 4.9 ± 3.7 | |
| Torque (Nm/kg) | 1.35 ± 0.32 | 1.45 ± 0.37 | 7.5 ± 7.4 | |
| TUGT (s) | 9.13 ± 1.82 | 7.58 ± 0.96 | -16.9 ± 9.0 | |
| 5×chair rise (s) | 13.52 ± 3.30 | 9.01 ± 1.19 | -33.3 ± 12.5 | |
| SPPB score | 10.13 ± 1.55 | 11.75 ± 0.46 | 16.0 ± 12.1 | |
| Stair test (s) | 15.26 ± 2.83 | 11.12 ± 1.70 | -27.2 ± 16.6 | |
| 10 m test habitual (m/s) | 1.09 ± 0.16 | 1.17 ± 0.14 | 7.4 ± 8.3 | |
| 10 m test fast (m/s) | 1.41 ± 0.15 | 1.51 ± 0.14 | 6.5 ± 6.3 | |
| Torque (Nm/kg) | 1.50 ± 0.36 | 1.57 ± 0.41 | 4.5 ± 6.7 | |
| TUGT (s) | 7.71 ± 1.92 | 6.49 ± 0.97 | -15.8 ± 8.8 | |
| 5×chair rise (s) | 14.22 ± 3.60 | 12.28 ± 4.74 | -13.7 ± 9.4 | |
| SPPB score | 10.0 ± 1.31 | 10.63 ± 1.51 | 6.3 ± 3.6 | |
| Stair test (s) | 14.92 ± 4.37 | 12.69 ± 2.77 | -15.0 ± 13.1 | |
| 10 m test habitual (m/s) | 1.31 ± 0.16 | 1.35 ± 0.17 | 3.5 ± 3.9 | |
| 10 m test fast (m/s) | 1.74 ± 0.29 | 1.81 ± 0.22 | 3.5 ± 4.0 | |
Values are given as mean ± SD; BMI, body mass index; TUGT, timed up and go test; SPPB, short physical performance battery. Improvement values are presented as difference in percentage ±95% confidence interval.
.
Figure 1Muscle morphology and fiber-type distribution. All muscle biopsies present well-packed myofibers, without signs of fibrosis, and inflammatory cell infiltration before (A) or after 9 weeks of training (B). The training induced an increase of either diameter and percentage of the fast-type fibers [brown stained (C,D)]. Bar 100 μm.
Mean myofiber diameter and fiber-type distribution in skeletal muscle biopsies pre- and post-training.
| Pre | Post | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All fibers | ||||
| Size (μm) | 49.6 ± 15.6 | 49.5 ± 15.8 | −0.3% | N.S |
| Fast-type fibers | ||||
| Size (μm) | 46.8 ± 14.4 | 47.8 ± 15.8 | +2.2% | |
| Percentage | 45% | 49% | +8.9% | N.S |
| Slow-type fibers | ||||
| Size (μm) | 50.4 ± 14.8 | 48.4 ± 16.7 | −3.6% | |
| Percentage | 55% | 51% | −7.2% | N.S |
The overall mean myofiber diameter did not significantly change after 9 weeks of training, while a significant increase of fast-type mean myofiber diameter was observed. Values are given in mean ± SD. Bold font indicates statistically significant values. N.S, No statistically significant.
Figure 2Electrical stimulation induces an increase of satellite cells. (A) Representative immunofluorescence analysis for N-CAM expression (red stained, arrowed). N-CAM expressing cells are increased in post-trained muscle compared with the pre-training condition. Nuclei are counterstained in blue with Hoechst. Bar 100 μm. (B) Representative co-immunofluorescence analyses of laminin (red staining) and Pax7 (green staining) expression in skeletal muscle biopsies comparing pre- to post-training conditions. The number of Pax7 positive cells (arrowed) is increased in biopsies of post-trained subjects, compared to the pre-training ones. Bar 100 μm. Right panel: percentage of Pax7+ cells in pre-trained and post-ES-trained muscles. Data are represented as average ± SD. ***p < 0.0001. (C) Real time PCR analysis for myogenin, miR-206, and miR-1 expression in pre-trained (PRE) and post-ES-trained (POST) muscles. Data are represented as average ± SEM. n = 16. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.005.
Figure 3Expression analyses of genes controlling muscle mass and metabolism. Real time PCR analysis for the expression of IGF-1 isoforms (total IGF-1pan, IGF-1Ea, IGF-1Eb, IGF-1Ec) (A) Atrogin-1, MurF-1, Beclin1, p62 (B), Myostatin (C), PGC1α (D), and Nrf2 (E). Data are represented as average ± SEM. n = 16. **p < 0.005; ***p < 0.0005.
Figure 4Electrical stimulation promotes ECM remodeling. Real time PCR analysis for Collagen I, Collagen III, Collagen VI, and miR-29. Data are represented as average ± SEM. n = 16. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.0005.