| Literature DB >> 32408015 |
Christiano R R Alves1, Willian das Neves2, Ney R de Almeida3, Eric J Eichelberger4, Paulo R Jannig5, Vanessa A Voltarelli3, Gabriel C Tobias3, Luiz R G Bechara3, Daniele de Paula Faria6, Maria J N Alves7, Lars Hagen8, Animesh Sharma8, Geir Slupphaug8, José B N Moreira9, Ulrik Wisloff9, Michael F Hirshman10, Carlos E Negrão11, Gilberto de Castro12, Roger Chammas6, Kathryn J Swoboda4, Jorge L Ruas13, Laurie J Goodyear10, Patricia C Brum14.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that exercise training would attenuate metabolic impairment in a model of severe cancer cachexia.Entities:
Keywords: Atrophy; Cancer cachexia; Endurance exercise; Muscle wasting; Response elements
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32408015 PMCID: PMC7283151 DOI: 10.1016/j.molmet.2020.101012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Metab ISSN: 2212-8778 Impact factor: 7.422
Figure 1Bone marrow injection of Walker 256 tumor cells in rats. (A) Representative DXA images of Walker 256 tumor-bearing rats at 16 days post injection (dpi). (B) Body mass delta changes in Walker 256 tumor-bearing rats. n = 15–21. (C) Lean mass. n = 5–6. (D) Representative images of left hindlimb. (E) Ambulation test. n = 10–12. (F) Circulating lactate levels. n = 6–11. (G) Insulin tolerance test. n = 6–8. (H) Food intake assessed in group-housed rats. n = 4–5. (I) Food intake assessed in single-housed rats in metabolic cages. 7–8. (J) Plantaris, Gastrocnemius, and Soleus mass relative to controls. n = 5–6. (K) Running capacity. n = 10. (L) Correlation between reduced running capacity (pre–post delta change) and survival after tumor cell injection. n = 10. (M) Study design to test exercise training effects. Walker 256 tumor-bearing rats were subjected to aerobic interval (AIT) or continuous (ACT) training. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01; ∗∗∗P < 0.001. n.s. not significant.
Figure 2Effects of exercise training on running capacity, survival rate and skeletal muscle in Walker 256 tumor-bearing rats. Tumor-bearing rats were submitted to aerobic interval (AIT) or continuous (ACT) training. (A) Running capacity. n = 22–23 rats. (B) Survival rate. n = 26–27 rats. Different letters indicate significant difference between groups. (C) Citrate synthase activity. n = 6–11 rats. (D) Total glutathione and (E) ratio between reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) glutathione. n = 6–10 rats. (F) Quantification of carbonyl protein levels. n = 6–8 rats. (G) 26 S proteasome activity. n = 6–11 rats. (H) Skeletal muscle mass normalized to tibia length. n = 4–6 rats. (I) Muscle contraction capacity at 18 dpi. n = 3 rats. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01; ∗∗∗P < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗P < 0.001. n.s. not significant. dpi: days post injection.
Figure 3Effects of aerobic interval training (AIT) on muscle proteome in tumor-bearing rats and mice. (A) Volcano plot comparing the profile of the plantaris proteomes of control and tumor-bearing rats. n = 5 rats. (B) Number of proteins differentially expressed in the plantaris muscle from tumor-bearing rats. Overlap indicates proteins were not changed between groups Pathway enrichment analysis using upregulated and downregulated proteins. n = 5 rats. (C) Volcano plot showing the effects of AIT specifically in proteins changed in tumor-bearing rats. n = 5 rats. (D) COPS2 protein content in the plantaris muscle. n = 5 rats. (E) Running capacity and (F) survival rate in B16 tumor-bearing mice submitted or not to AIT. n = 11–14. (G) COPS2 protein content in the plantaris muscle in B16 tumor-bearing mice submitted or not to AIT. n = pool of 8 mice for each group. (H) COPS2 protein content in the plantaris muscle in LLC tumor-bearing mice. n = 9–10 mice. (I) VO2 peak from patients with NSCLC prior to first line therapy. n = 4–6 subjects. (J) Quantification and representative immunoblot for COPS2 protein content in the vastus lateralis muscle from patients with NSCLC. n = 4–6 subjects. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01; ∗∗∗P < 0.001; ∗∗∗∗P < 0.001; n.s. not significant. dpi: days post injection.
Figure 4Effects of COPS2 knockdown in primary human myotubes. (A) COPS2 mRNA expression 48 h after transfection with a specific siRNA for COPS2. n = 3 independent experiments. (B) Immunoblot demonstrating efficiency of COPS2 knockdown. (C) Total protein content 48 h after COPS2 knockdown. n = 3 independent experiments. (D) Heatmap including genes differentially regulated by COPS2 knockdown. n = 3 independent experiments. (E) Most significant pathways affected by COPS2 knockdown. (F) Volcano plot with highlights for the genes most differentially regulated by COPS2 knockdown. n = 3 independent experiments. (G) RT-qPCR validation for the 4 genes most regulated by COPS2 knockdown. n = 3 independent experiments. (H) Energy map showing changes in oxygen consumption rate (OCR) and extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) after COPS2 knockdown. n = 11 technical replications. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01; ∗∗∗∗P < 0.001; n.s. not significant.
Figure 5Effects of cancer-conditioned media in primary mouse myoblast-derived myotubes. (A) Experimental design to challenge myotubes with cancer-conditioned media. (B and C) Total protein content in myotubes treated for (B) 24 or (C) 48 h with media conditioned in HeLa, B16F10 or LLC tumor cells. n = 3 independent experiments. (D) Representative images of myotubes treated for 48 h with LLC-conditioned media. (E) COPS2 protein expression in myotubes treated with LLC conditioned media. n = 3 independent experiments. (F) Cops2 mRNA expression 48 h after transduction with an adenovirus vector-COPS2. n = 3 technical replications. (G) Immunoblot demonstrating efficiency of COPS2 overexpression. (H and I) Total protein content and representative images of myotubes with COPS2 overexpression with or without treatment with LLC-conditioned media for 48 h n = 3–4 technical replications. (J) Total protein content of myotubes with COPS2 knockdown with or without treatment with LLC-conditioned media for 48 h n = 12 technical replications. (K) Total glutathione. n = 5 technical replications. (L and M) F-actin expression. n = 3–5 technical replications. (N) 26 S proteasome activity. n = 3 technical replications. (O) Slc7a5 mRNA expression. n = 6 technical replications. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗P < 0.0001. n.s. not significant.
Figure 6Effects of LLC-conditioned media and COPS2 regulation on a specific direct repeat 4 (DR4) response element activity. (A) Immunofluorescence demonstrating specific nuclear staining for COPS2 using a specific C-terminal antibody in C2C12 myoblasts. (B) Quantification of nuclear COPS2 expression with or without treatment with LLC-conditioned media in C2C12 myoblasts for 16 h n = 6 independent experiments. (C) Experimental design to analyze the effects of LLC-conditioned media and COPS2 regulation on DR4 activity using a luciferase reporter assay. (D) DR4 activity after LLC-conditioned media treatment. n = 3 independent experiments. (E and F) DR4 activity after COPS2 (E) overexpression or (F) knockdown with or without cancer-conditioned media treatment. n = 3 independent experiments. Data are presented as mean ± s.e.m. ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001, ∗∗∗∗P < 0.0001. n.s. not significant.