| Literature DB >> 28984836 |
Gabriel Nasri Marzuca-Nassr1,2, Gilson Masahiro Murata3, Amanda Roque Martins4, Kaio Fernando Vitzel5,6, Amanda Rabello Crisma7, Rosângela Pavan Torres8, Jorge Mancini-Filho9, Jing Xuan Kang10, Rui Curi11,12.
Abstract
The consequences of two-week hindlimb suspension (HS) on skeletal muscle atrophy were investigated in balanced diet-fed Fat-1 transgenic and C57BL/6 wild-type mice. Body composition and gastrocnemius fatty acid composition were measured. Skeletal muscle force, cross-sectional area (CSA), and signaling pathways associated with protein synthesis (protein kinase B, Akt; ribosomal protein S6, S6, eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-binding protein 1, 4EBP1; glycogen synthase kinase3-beta, GSK3-beta; and extracellular-signal-regulated kinases 1/2, ERK 1/2) and protein degradation (atrophy gene-1/muscle atrophy F-box, atrogin-1/MAFbx and muscle RING finger 1, MuRF1) were evaluated in the soleus muscle. HS decreased soleus muscle wet and dry weights (by 43% and 26%, respectively), muscle isotonic and tetanic force (by 29% and 18%, respectively), CSA of the soleus muscle (by 36%), and soleus muscle fibers (by 45%). Fat-1 transgenic mice had a decrease in the ω-6/ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) ratio as compared with C57BL/6 wild-type mice (56%, p < 0.001). Fat-1 mice had lower soleus muscle dry mass loss (by 10%) and preserved absolute isotonic force (by 17%) and CSA of the soleus muscle (by 28%) after HS as compared with C57BL/6 wild-type mice. p-GSK3B/GSK3B ratio was increased (by 70%) and MuRF-1 content decreased (by 50%) in the soleus muscle of Fat-1 mice after HS. Balanced diet-fed Fat-1 mice are able to preserve in part the soleus muscle mass, absolute isotonic force and CSA of the soleus muscle in a disuse condition.Entities:
Keywords: Fat-1 mice; hindlimb suspension; muscle disuse atrophy; protein synthesis/degradation signaling; ω-3 PUFAs
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28984836 PMCID: PMC5691716 DOI: 10.3390/nu9101100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Body weight, skeletal muscles and fat depots mass and soleus protein content of the four groups: C57BL/6, C57BL/6 + HS, Fat-1, and Fat-1 + HS.
| C57BL/6 | C57BL/6 + HS | Fat-1 | Fat-1 + HS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial body weight (g) | 23 ± 0.6 | 23 ± 0.5 | 22 ± 0.4 | 24 ± 0.7 |
| Increase or decrease of body mass after 14 days (g) | 1.6 ± 0.3 | −0.7 ± 0.3 b | 1.3 ± 0.4 | −1.7 ± 0.8 c |
| Wet weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.456 ± 0.019 | 0.263 ± 0.010 c | 0.435 ± 0.013 | 0.319 ± 0.021 c,x |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 42% | 27% | ||
| Dry weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.149 ± 0.010 | 0.112 ± 0.010 a | 0.151 ± 0.017 | 0.137 ± 0.012 |
| Percent loss due to HS in dry weight | 25% | 9% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 6.945 ± 0.168 | 5.334 ± 0.144 c | 6.608 ± 0.213 | 5.473 ± 0.188 c |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 23% | 17% | ||
| Dry weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 1.683 ± 0.046 | 1.320 ± 0.046 c | 1.649 ± 0.056 | 1.355 ± 0.063 b |
| Percent loss due to HS in dry weight | 22% | 18% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.892 ± 0.019 | 0.697 ± 0.010 c | 0.914 ± 0.013 | 0.784 ± 0.021 c,y |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 22% | 14% | ||
| Dry weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.218 ± 0.009 | 0.171 ± 0.006 b | 0.232 ± 0.012 | 0.187 ± 0.010 b |
| Percent loss due to HS in dry weight | 22% | 19% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 2.237 ± 0.074 | 1.860 ± 0.063 c | 2.369 ± 0.098 | 1.949 ± 0.071 b |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 17% | 18% | ||
| Dry weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.635 ± 0.015 | 0.565 ± 0.025 | 0.645 ± 0.034 | 0.536 ± 0.025 a |
| Percent loss due to HS in dry weight | 11% | 17% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.478 ± 0.020 | 0.434 ± 0.021 | 0.544 ± 0.015 x | 0.469 ± 0.017 a |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 9% | 14% | ||
| Dry weight (mg/mm tibia length) | 0.141 ± 0.009 | 0.122 ± 0.009 | 0.137 ± 0.007 | 0.128 ± 0.008 |
| Percent loss due to HS in dry weight | 14% | 7% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/cm L) | 22.49 ± 2.40 | 22.55 ± 2.98 | 21.03 ± 1.30 | 18.51 ± 2.46 |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 0% | 12% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/cm L) | 26.23 ± 1.56 | 15.37 ± 0.81 c | 19.82 ± 1.30 y | 11.16 ± 1.57 c |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 41% | 44% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/cm L) | 6.80 ± 0.93 | 7.40 ± 0.72 | 6.72 ± 0.46 | 4.56 ± 0.54 x |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 0% | 32% | ||
| Wet weight (mg/cm L) | 17.21 ± 2.96 | 13.35 ± 2.55 | 15.48 ± 2.57 | 12.90 ± 3.29 |
| Percent loss due to HS in wet weight | 22% | 17% | ||
| mg/g fresh tissue | 34.33 ± 7.84 | 43.00 ± 9.72 | 62.47 ± 7.16 x | 59.67 ± 1.22 |
Values are presented as mean ± SEM of at least seven animals. The results were compared using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. The percentages indicate the effect of HS in the respective groups. a p < 0.05; b p < 0.01; c p < 0.001 for significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test between the HS groups and the respective controls. x p < 0.05; y p < 0.01; z p < 0.001 for significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test between the C57BL/6 vs. Fat-1 groups (C57BL/6 vs. Fat-1 or C57BL/6 + HS vs. Fat-1 + HS). HS: the hindlimb suspension group; EDL: extensor digitorum longus; L: length of the animal; SEM: standard error of the mean.
Composition of fatty acids in the gastrocnemius muscle (g/100 g wet weight).
| Fatty Acid | Name | C57BL/6 | C57BL/6 + HS | Fat-1 | Fat-1 + HS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14:0 | Myristic | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
| 16:0 | Palmitic | 0.29 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.10 | 0.30 ± 0.03 |
| 16:1 (ω-7) | Hexadecenoic | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 c |
| 17:0 | Margaric | - | - | - | - |
| 18:0 | Stearic | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
| 18:1 (ω-9) | Oleic | 0.18 ± 0.06 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.13 ± 0.07 | 0.18 ± 0.04 |
| 18:1 (ω-11) | Vaccenic | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.00 |
| 18:2 (ω-6) | Linoleic | 0.25 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 0.24 ± 0.04 |
| 20:0 | Eicosanoic | - | - | - | - |
| 20:1 (ω-9) | Eicosenoic | - | - | - | - |
| 18:3 (ω-6) | γ-Linolenic | - | - | - | - |
| 18:3 (ω-3) | α-Linolenic | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 |
| 22:0 | Docosanoic | - | - | - | - |
| 20:2 (ω-6) | Eicosadienoic | 0.01 ± 0.00 | - | - | - |
| 20:3 (ω-9) | Eicosatrienoic | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | - | - |
| 20:4 (ω-6) | Arachidonic | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 z | 0.01 ± 0.00 z |
| 22:2 (ω-6) | Docosadienoic | - | - | - | — |
| 20:5 (ω-3) | Eicosapentaenoic | - | - | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.01 |
| 22:4 (ω-3) | Docosatetraenoic | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | - | - |
| 22:5 (ω-6) | Docosapentaenoic | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | - | - |
| 22:5 (ω-3) | Docosapentaenoic | 0.02 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.02 z | 0.06 ± 0.01 z |
| 22:6 (ω-3) | Docosahexaenoic | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.04 | 0.15 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.03 |
| Total | Saturated | 0.44 ± 0.06 | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 0.35 ± 0.16 | 0.44 ± 0.04 |
| Monounsaturated | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 0.23 ± 0.06 | 0.18 ± 0.09 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | |
| Polyunsaturated | 0.59 ± 0.11 | 0.57 ± 0.08 | 0.45 ± 0.20 | 0.56 ± 0.06 | |
| ω-3 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 0.31 ± 0.04 a,y | |
| ω-6 | 0.42 ± 0.08 | 0.39 ± 0.04 | 0.23 ± 0.10 z | 0.25 ± 0.04 y | |
| ω-6/ω-3 ratio | 2.62±0.39 | 2.11 ± 0.27 b | 1.14 ± 0.27 z | 0.79 ± 0.11 y | |
| Total fat % | 1.37±0.25 | 1.32 ± 0.17 | 1.25 ± 0.10 | 1.37 ± 0.16 | |
The determination of fatty acid by gas chromatography was calculated from the tridecanoate triglyceride, which was used as internal standard. Values are presented as mean ± SD, n = 6–7 per group. The results were compared using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. a p < 0.05; b p < 0.01; c p < 0.001 for: significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test between the hindlimb suspension groups and the respective controls. x p < 0.05; y p < 0.01; z p < 0.001 for: significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test between the C57BL/6 vs. Fat-1 groups (C57BL/6 vs. Fat-1 or C57BL/6 + HS vs. Fat-1 + HS). HS: hindlimb suspension; SD: standard deviation; -: not detected.
Figure 1Muscle strength, contractile properties and muscle fatigue of the four groups studied (C57BL/6, C57BL/6 + HS, Fat-1, Fat-1 + HS) in the soleus muscle. Muscle strength: (A) Absolute isotonic force. (B) Absolute tetanic force. Contractile properties: (C) TTP; (D) HRT; (E) LRT. Muscle fatigue: (F) and (G) Resistance to fatigue (force vs contraction). Values are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 5–8 animals. The results were compared using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. In (A), p < 0.01 indicates significant difference using the Bonferroni post-hoc test. In (B), * p < 0.01 for C57BL/6 and Fat-1 groups vs. C57BL/6 + HS and Fat-1 + HS groups (main effect of HS), using two-way ANOVA only (no statistical differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test). HS: hindlimb suspension; TTP: time to peak; HRT: half relaxation time; LRT: late relaxation time.
Figure 2Cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the soleus muscle and soleus muscle fibers of the four groups studied (C57BL/6, C57BL/6 + HS, Fat-1, Fat-1 + HS). (A) Representative histological hematoxylin and eosin staining images of cross-sectional areas of the whole soleus muscle. a. C57BL/6; b. C57BL/6 + HS; c. Fat-1; d. Fat-1 + HS. Reference bar represents 200 µm. (B) Cross-sectional area of the soleus muscle. Values are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 7–8 animals. (C) Representative histological hematoxylin and eosin staining images of cross-sectional areas of soleus muscle fibers. a. C57BL/6; b. C57BL/6 + HS; c. Fat-1; d. Fat-1 + HS. Reference bar represents 50 µm. (D) Cross-sectional areas of soleus muscle fibers. Values are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 6–8. The results were compared using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. In (B) and (D), p values indicate significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test. HS: hindlimb suspension; CSA: Cross-sectional area. 3.7. Activities of Cathepsin L and 26S Proteasome in the Gastrocnemius Muscle, and Contents of Atrogin-1/MAFbx and MuRF1 in the Soleus Muscle.
Figure 3(A) Cathepsin L activity in the gastrocnemius muscle of the four groups studied (C57BL/6, C57BL/6 + HS, Fat-1, Fat-1 + HS). (B) 26S proteasome activity in the gastrocnemius muscle. (C) atrogin-1/MAFbx and (D) MuRF-1 content in soleus muscle. Values are presented as mean ± SEM on the basis of total protein loading as indicated by the Ponceau S measurement (C,D) and expressed relative to the C57BL/6 control group, n = 5–8 animals. The results were compared using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc test. In (A) and (D), p < 0.05 indicates significant differences using the Bonferroni post-hoc test. HS: hindlimb suspension.