| Literature DB >> 29880749 |
Dana M Otzel1, Jimmy Lee2, Fan Ye3, Stephen E Borst4, Joshua F Yarrow5,6.
Abstract
Neuromuscular impairment and reduced musculoskeletal integrity are hallmarks of spinal cord injury (SCI) that hinder locomotor recovery. These impairments are precipitated by the neurological insult and resulting disuse, which has stimulated interest in activity-based physical rehabilitation therapies (ABTs) that promote neuromuscular plasticity after SCI. However, ABT efficacy declines as SCI severity increases. Additionally, many men with SCI exhibit low testosterone, which may exacerbate neuromusculoskeletal impairment. Incorporating testosterone adjuvant to ABTs may improve musculoskeletal recovery and neuroplasticity because androgens attenuate muscle loss and the slow-to-fast muscle fiber-type transition after SCI, in a manner independent from mechanical strain, and promote motoneuron survival. These neuromusculoskeletal benefits are promising, although testosterone alone produces only limited functional improvement in rodent SCI models. In this review, we discuss the (1) molecular deficits underlying muscle loss after SCI; (2) independent influences of testosterone and locomotor training on neuromuscular function and musculoskeletal integrity post-SCI; (3) hormonal and molecular mechanisms underlying the therapeutic efficacy of these strategies; and (4) evidence supporting a multimodal strategy involving ABT with adjuvant testosterone, as a potential means to promote more comprehensive neuromusculoskeletal recovery than either strategy alone.Entities:
Keywords: BDNF; FOXO; IGF-1; PGC-1 alpha; PGC-1 beta; PI3K; bodyweight-supported treadmill training; estradiol; estrogen; motor neuron; muscle; neuroplasticity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29880749 PMCID: PMC6032131 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19061701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Androgen-mediated Anabolic and Anticatabolic Signaling Pathways in Muscle. Anabolic signaling: Androgens (A) pass through the plasma membrane and bind to cytosolic androgen receptors (AR). Dimerized and phosphorylated ARs pass through the nuclear membrane and bind to a region of the DNA termed the androgen response element (ARE), thereby initiating protein synthesis. Ligand-bound ARs may also enhance Wnt signaling as follows. Wnt binds to Frizzled and in turn disheveled (not shown). Disheveled inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK3β), which phosphorylates β-catenin and marks it for degradation. When GSK3β is inhibited, β-catenin accumulates and enters the nucleus where it binds to a region of the DNA termed the T-cell factor/lymphoid enhancer factor (TCF/LEF) that regulates genes involved in myogenic differentiation. Ligand-bound ARs enhance Wnt signaling by inhibiting GSK3β and attaching to β-catenin for nuclear shuttling. Androgens may also indirectly stimulate protein synthesis by activating the phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt signaling through actions of Erk or by promoting synthesis of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 or mechano growth factor (MGF). IGF-1 and MGF bind cell-surface IGF-1 receptors (IGF-1R) and activate PI3K/Akt signaling. Anticatabolic signaling: Activation of PI3K/Akt signaling inhibits the transcription factor forkhead box O (FOXO). FOXO1 and FOXO3a activate muscle atrophy F-box (MAFbx or atrogin-1) and muscle ring finger-1 (MuRF1), and E3 ubiquitin ligases that prepare proteins for proteasome degradation.
Characteristics of Bodyweight Supported Locomotor Training in Human Spinal Cord Injury Studies.
| Study | Intervention | Duration | Population | N | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Dobkin et al., 2007 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT vs. | 12 wk | 38 ASIA B, 107 ASIA C&D | 145 | BWSTT increased walking speed from ~0.40 m/s at 2 weeks post-entry to 0.85 m/s for ASIA C&D. OG training increased walking speed from ~0.50 at 2 weeks post-entry to 0.84 m/s for ASIA C&D. Poor walking outcomes were observed for ASIA B participants. |
| Field-Fote et al., 2001 [ | BWSTT with ES | 3 days/wk, 12 wk | ASIA C | 19 | Walking speed increased from 0.12 to 0.21 m/s. a |
| Alcobendas-Maestro et al., 2012 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT vs. | 3–6 mo | ASIA C&D | 48 M/32F | Robotic-assisted BWSTT and OG training walking speed remained the same from baseline to post-training. Robotic-assisted BWSTT increased 6 min walk distance from 91 to 169 m. a |
| Alexeeva et al., 2011 [ | BWS training on a fixed track vs. | 3 days/wk 13 wk | ASIA C&D | 30 M/5 F | BWS on a fixed track increased walking speed from 0.33 to 0.44 m/s. a BWSTT increased walking speed from 0.30 to 0.46 m/s. a PT increased walking speed from 0.41 to 0.51 m/s. a |
| Duffell et al., 2015 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 19 M/7 F | Walking speed increased from ~0.55 to ~0.58 m/s. a |
| Esclarin-Ruz et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT + OG training (LKOGT) vs. Conventional OG training (OGT) | 5 days/wk, 8 wk | ASIA C&D | 59 M/24 F | LKOGT increased walking speed from 0.48 to 0.54 m/s and 6 min walk distance from 122 to 187 m b in participants with upper motor neuron injury. LKOGT increased walking speed from 0.24 to 0.46 m/s and 6 min walk distance from 82 to 157 m b in participants with lower motor neuron injury. |
| Field-Fote et al., 2005 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT (TM) vs. | 5 days/wk 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 22 M/5 F | TM increased walking speed from ~0.07 to ~0.10. |
| Field-Fote & Roach 2011 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT (TM) vs. | 5 days/wk, 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 52 M/12 F | TM increased walk speed from 0.17 to 0.22 m/s a and 2 min distance from 22.1 to 23.0 m. |
| Gorassini et al., 2009 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 5 days/wk, 14 wk | ASIA C&D | 14 M/3 F | In 9 responders, walking speed increased from 0.31 to 0.55 m/s. a In 8 non-responders, there was no change in walking speed. |
| Harkema et al., 2012 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 3 day/wk, 4 to 92 wks | ASIA C&D | 148M/48 F | Walking speed increased from 0.31 to 0.51 m/s a and 6 min walk distance increased from 91 to 154 m. a |
| Kapadia et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT + ES | 3 days/wk, 16 wk | ASIA C&D | 13 M/3 F | Walking speed increased from 0.23 to 0.28 m/s and 6 min walk distance increased from 187.9 to 217.1 m. a |
| Knikou 2013 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 5 days/wk, 1.5–3.5 mo | ASIA C&D | 9 M/3 F | 6 min walk distance increased from 36.25 to 39.05 m for ASIA C and from 252 to 279.5 m for ASIA D participants. |
| Krishnan et al., 2016 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 day/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 8 M/8 F | Median walking speed increased from 0.58 to 0.66 m/s. a 6 min walking distance did not change. |
| Labruyere et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 4 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 5 M/4 F | Walking speed increased from 0.62 to 0.66 m/s. |
| Lam et al., 2015 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT with resistance (LR) vs. Robotic-assisted BWSTT only (LO) | 3 days/wk, 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 9 M/6 F | LR increased walking speed from 0.29 to 0.40 m/s. |
| Lucarelli et al., 2011 [ | BWSTT vs. | 2 days/wk, 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 20 M/10 F | BWSTT increased walking speed from 0.85 to 1.25 m/s a as well as increased cadence, distance, step length and swing phase. |
| Morrison et al., 2018 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 120 sessions | ASIA C&D | 49 M/20 F | Median walking speed increased by 0.25 m/s. a Median 6 min walk distance increased by 66 m. a |
| Niu et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 27 M/13 F | Walking speed increased in the low-walking capacity group from 0.12 to 0.15 m/s and in the high-walking capacity group from 0.84 to 0.97 m/s. 6 min walk distance did not change. |
| Nooijen et al., 2009 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT vs. | 4 days/wk, 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 40 M/11 F | All therapies led to small improvements in gait quality (increased cadence and step length) with no differences among groups. |
| Potsans et al., 2004 [ | BWSTT with ES | 5 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 12 M/2 F | In AB group, walking speed increased 0.23 m/s and 6 min walk distance increased 72.2 m. |
| Thomas et al., 2005 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 4 days/wk, 16 wk | ASIA C&D | 8 M/2 F | Walking speed increased from 0.15 to 0.53 m/s a and 6 min walk distance increased from 34.2 to 167.6 m. |
| Varoqui et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 14 M/ 1 F | Walking speed increased from 0.56 to 0.64 m/s a and 6 min walk distance did not change (207 to 209 m). |
| Winchester et al., 2005 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk 12 wk | ASIA C&D | 4 M | Walking speed increased for 3 participants from 0.0 to 0.11, 0.0 to 0.81, 0.24 to 0.62 m/s and one remained unable to ambulate. |
| Wirz et al., 2005 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 4 days/wk, 8 wk | ASIA C&D | 18 M/2 F | Walking speed increased from ~0.37 to ~.48 m/s a and 6 min walk distance 120 to 160 m. a |
| Wu et al., 2012 [ | 4 wk Robotic-assistance BWSTT + 4 wk Robotic-resistance BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 8 wk | ASIA D | 8 M/2 F | Walking speed increased from 0.67 to 0.76 m/s a and 6 min walk distance increased from 223 to 247 m. Step length and cadence increased. a |
|
| |||||
| Duffell et al., 2015 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 19 M/7 F | Maximal isometric ankle dorsiflexion torque increased from 12.3 to 13.2 Nm, a but plantar flexion torque did not change (28.1 vs. 28.4 Nm). |
| Galen et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 5 days/wk, 6 wk | ASIA C&D | 14 M/4 F | Percent peak torque increased 68% for hip flexion, 54% for hip extension, 93% for knee flexion and 71% for knee extension. |
| Gorassini et al., 2009 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 5 days/wk, 14 wk | ASIA C&D | 14 M/3 F | In 9 responders, peak electromyography activity increased from 67 to 135 μV in the tibialis anterior muscle and 36 to 50 μV in the hamstrings. In 8 non-responders, there was no change. |
| Jayaraman et al., 2008 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 5 days/wk, 9 wk | ASIA C&D | 4 M/1 F | Isometric knee extension strength increased 21%. Isometric plantar flexion strength increased 44%. Knee extension and plantar flexion voluntary muscle activation improved. Maximal CSA of the plantar flexors increased and 15%. |
| Krishnan et al., 2016 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 day/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 8 M/8 F | BWSTT increased isometric ankle dorsiflexion by 20% and ankle plantar flexion by 22%. |
| Thomas et al., 2005 [ | Manual-assisted BWSTT | 4 days/wk, 16 wk | ASIA C&D | 8 M/2 F | Peak electromyography activity averaged from four lower limb muscles increased during treadmill walking from 82.4 to 137.1 μV. |
| Varoqui et al., 2014 [ | Robotic-assisted BWSTT | 3 days/wk, 4 wk | ASIA C&D | 14 M/1 F | Ankle dorsiflexion torque increased from 26.8 to 29.1 Nma and ankle plantar flexion torque increased from 10.9 to 13.5 Nm. a |
BWSTT = bodyweight supported treadmill training; CSA = cross-sectional area; ES = electrical stimulation; m = meter, min = minute; mo = month; OG = overground; PT = physical therapy; wk = week. Note: a indicates statistically different from baseline; b indicates statistically different between training groups.
Characteristics of Bodyweight Supported Treadmill Training (BWSTT) in Rodent SCI Studies.
| Study | Sex/Age | Injury Level | Start of Training | Training Duration | BBB wk 1 | BBB End | Gait Outcome | Muscle/Electrophysiology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Maier et al., 2009 [ | F/A | T8 | 1 wk | 8 wk | ~12 | N/R | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
| Battistuzzo et al., 2016 [ | M/A | T10 | 1 wk | 9 wk | N/R | N/R | Kinematics ↑ | N/R |
| Battistuzzo et al., 2017 [ | M/A | T10 | 1 wk | 9 wk | N/R | N/R | N/R | G fCSA ↑ |
| Shah et al., 2013 [ | N/R/N/R | T10 | 5 days | 2.5 wk | N/R | N/R | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
| Goldshmit et al., 2008 [ | N/R/A | T12 | 1 wk | 4 wk | ~3 | 11T/6C | Kinematics ↑ | G-S fCSA ↑ |
|
| ||||||||
| Nessler et al., 2006 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 wk | 12 wk | 13 | 14T/No C | N/R | N/R |
| Oh et al., 2009 [ | M/Y | T9–10 | 1 wk | 4wk | ~4 | 13T/8C | N/R | N/R |
|
| ||||||||
| Stevens et al., 2006 [ | F/Y | T8 | 1 wk | 1 wk | ~5 | 10T/6C | N/R | Sol F ↑/fCSA ↑ |
| Liu et al., 2008 [ | F/Y | T8 | 8 days | 12 wk | 3–7 | 15T/11C | N/R | G-S CSA ↑ |
| Nessler et al., 2006 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 wk | 12 wk | 9 | 11T/No C | N/R | N/R |
| Shin et al., 2014 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 wk | 8 wk | ~6 | ~13T/~10C | N/R | N/R |
| Wang et al., 2015 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 wk | 16 wk | ~7 | ~13T/~11C | N/R | N/R |
| Singh et al., 2011 [ | F/Y | T9–10 | 1 wk | 8 wk | ~5 | ~8T/~9C | N/R | mass/bw ↑ |
| Bose et al., 2012 [ | F/A | T8 | 1 wk | 12 wk | ~3 | ~15T/~11C | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
| Multon et al., 2003 [ | F/A | T9 | 2–4 days | 12 wk | ~2 | 10T/8C | N/R | N/R |
| Wu et al., 2016 [ | F/A | T10 | 1 wk | 4 wk | ~5 | ~13T/~9C | N/R | N/R |
| Foret et al., 2010 [ | F/A | T10 | 1 day | 4 wk | ~2 | ~9T/~7C | N/R | N/R |
| Ward et al., 2014 [ | M/Y | T8 | 2 wk | 12 wk | ~7 | ~12T/~9C | N/R | Sol EMG ↑ |
| Park et al., 2010 [ | M/Y | T10 | 3 days | 25 days | ~2 | 11.5 | N/R | N/R |
| Liu et al., 2017 [ | N/R/N/R | T9 | 1 wk | 2 wk | N/R | N/R | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
|
| ||||||||
| Hayashibe et al., 2016 [ | F/Y | T8–9 | 1 wk | 4 wk | <1 | 16T/10C | N/R | N/R |
| Heng et al., 2009 [ | F/Y | T9 | 42 days | 8 wk | N/R | N/R | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
| Nessler et al., 2006 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 wk | 12 wk | 4.5 | ~9T/No C | N/R | N/R |
| Shinozaki et al., 2016 [ | F/Y | T10 | 6 wk | 8 wk | ~1 | 4T/3C | N/R | N/R |
| Robert et al., 2010 [ | F/A | T7–8 | 2 wk | 2 wk | ~3 | 4T/3.5C | N/R | N/R |
| Ichiyama et al., 2009 [ | F/A | T10 | 30 days | 8 wk | N/R | N/R | Gait not improved | N/R |
|
| ||||||||
| Petruska et al., 2007 [ | F/N | T6–8 | 16 days | 6 wk | N/R | N/R | Stepping ↑ | G EPSP ↑ |
| Tillakaratne et al., 2010 [ | F/N | T7–8 | 26 days | 8 wk | N/R | N/R | Stepping ↑ | N/R |
| See et al., 2013 [ | F/N | T8–9 | 3 wk | 4 wk | N/R | N/R | Kinematics ↑ | N/R |
| Timoszyk et al., 2005 [ | F/N | N/R | 64 days | 40 days | N/R | N/R | Gait not improved | N/R |
| Zhang et al., 2007 [ | F/Y | T8 | 5 days | 40 days | <1 | ~6.5T/~2C | N/R | N/R |
| Lee et al., 2010 [ | F/Y | T8 | 3 wk | 42 wk | N/R | N/R | Gait not improved | N/R |
| De Leon et al., 2006 [ | F/Y | T9 | 3 wk | 16 wk | N/R | N/R | Kinematics ↑ | N/R |
| Moshonkina et al., 2004 [ | F/Y | T9 | 1 day | 9 wk | N/R | N/R | Kinematics ↑ | N/R |
| Kubasak et al., 2008 [ | F/N/R | T9 | 4 wk | 20 wk | N/R | N/R | Gait not improved | N/R |
| Fouad et al., 2000 [ | B/A | T8 | 3 days | 5 wk | ~9 | 14T/14C | Kinematics ↑ | N/R |
| Ihla et al., 2011 [ | M/A | T8–9 | 6 days | 9 wk | N/R | N/R | N/R | Sol fCSA ↑ |
Sex: B, both females and males; F, female; M, male; N/R, not reported; Age: A, adult; N, neonate; N/R, not reported; Y, young; Injury Level: T, thoracic; Start of Training: wk, week; BBB end of training: T, trained; C, control SCI untrained; Other gait outcome: ↑ improvement; Muscle/Electrophysiology: bw, bodyweight; EPSP, evoked monosynaptic excitatory postsynaptic potentials F, force; fCSA, fiber cross-sectional area; G, gastrocnemius; G-S, gastrocnemius-soleus; ↑, increased; Sol, soleus, N/R, not reported. Note: The BBB scale ranges from 0–21 and is used to evaluate functional locomotor recovery ranging from no observable movement (0) to consistent weight-supported plantar stepping with coordinated gait (21).